Source: The Milk Foundation

BY WILLIAM RODRIGUEZ-KENNEDY

The San Diego City Council unanimously approved changing the name of Blaine Avenue in the historically LGBT neighborhood of Hillcrest to Harvey Milk Street. The name change will honor the late civil rights activist, who was the first openly gay elected official in the United States.

San Diego is the first city in the U.S. to honor Milk with by naming a street after him. Already, there are schools and various community centers named after Milk.

City commissioner and chairman of the Harvey Milk GLBT Historic Task Force of San Diego County, Nicole Murray Ramirez, told LGBT Weekly, “This victory was eight years in the making. We had tried to name Centre Street in front of the Center … but we dropped it because of opposition.”

Blaine Avenue, the street whose name will be replaced, is located two blocks from Cleveland Avenue near the San Diego LGBT Community Center.

During the public comment section of the Council meeting only one person, James Hartline, spoke against the motion. Several high-profile LGBT-community leaders spoke or were in attendance during the historic city council meeting, including Dwayne Crenshaw, executive director of San Diego LGBT Pride; Susan Jester, cofounder of AIDS Walk in San Diego and former president of the San Diego chapter of the Log Cabin Republicans; Stampp Corbin, San

Diego LGBT Weekly publisher and former co-chair for LGBT issues of the Obama for America Campaign of 2008; as well as ACLU and San Diego Pride Board Member Stephen Whitburn.

The motion to approve the project was made by openly gay Councilman Todd Gloria who represents District 3 where the street will be located. The motion was seconded by Councilman Carl DeMaio, who is also gay and who represents District 5. DeMaio is currently a leading candidate for mayor of San Diego.

Councilwoman Lori Zapf accidentally voted against the measure but quickly corrected her vote. Council President Tony Young allowed the Council to vote a second time so Zapf could be recorded as having voted in favor of the name change. “I am so sorry I have just received a text that a friend of mine had passed and I am a little shaken up,” the councilwoman said to her colleagues and members of the public. Previouisly, Zapf had been criticized for anti-LGBT emails sent to LGBT-equality opponent and activist, James Hartline during her campaign for city council in 2010. Zapf has since changed her position and become friendly to policies supporting LGBT-equality.

An unveiling ceremony marking the name change is scheduled for May 22 at 5 p.m. to also  commemorate Harvey Milk’s birthday.In addition to forwarding the cause of equal rights for LGBT San Franciscans, Californians and Americans, Milk famously fought and beat a ballot initiative that would have barred gays, lesbians and bisexual people from teaching in California’s public schools.

Harvey Milk was a member of the San Francisco City and County Board of Supervisors. He was was assassinated along with San Francisco Mayor George Moscone November 27, 1978. The assassin, Dan White was also a member of the Board of Supervisors – but one who had resigned days before killing Mayor Moscone and Supervisor Milk. White was acquitted of murdering the two officials by using what became known as the “Twinkie Defense” (temporary insanity due to overconsumption of high-sugar junk food).

Nathan Fletcher

The Mayor’s Race

For what will likely be San Diego LGBT Weekly’s final mayoral Q&A, Nathan Fletcher came to our offices in Banker’s Hill to be interviewed on vital topics ranging from the local economy to the city’s wide array of social issues. Fletcher had a one-word answer to the big question: “Do you support same-sex marriage?” His answer was “Absolutely.”

LGBT Weekly: I know you’ve been asked why you made the switch from being a Republican candidate for mayor to an Independent. Why did you join the GOP to begin with?

Nathan Fletcher: There are issues where I probably wind up more with the Republican approach – economic issues maybe.

Taxes?

Competitiveness of the workforce; yes maybe taxes. I think when I was a little guy growing up the defining president of my time when I was little was President Reagan. He really restored faith in what it felt like to be an American. And I feel he really shared the working-class, blue-collar family values of my upbringing. You know, my dad was a factory worker. I vividly remember Reagan Democrats and the vision of the American Dream and opportunity that he represented.

Were your parents Reagan Democrats?

Yes they were.

Was your dad a union worker?

Yes he was.

That’s an interesting dichotomy in the sense that people who belong to unions are traditionally Democrats; yet he was a Reagan Democrat, which meant he voted Republican.

Yeah, and I think it was that and heading into military service in the Marine Corps that (led to my becoming a Republican).

But what the GOP has become is different than it once was. There used to be a place for socially progressive; environmentally conscience; fiscally responsible – pragmatic members that actually want to govern and make a real difference. That’s not the case anymore.

It’s been almost forty years since Ronald Reagan said the same thing of the Democratic Party – that he didn’t leave it; the Democratic Party left him.

Part of my frustration has been (the GOP’s) adherence to the far right. For example on what should be easy issues like (the repeal of) Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. I was in a meeting with all the Republicans and they asked me, “Are you going to speak on this issue?” And I said, “Yeah, I’m going to speak on it.”

Did you get any support from your former party on DADT?

They said that was great; and wanted to be sure I was going to speak for keeping the policy. I told them, “No, I’m going to speak from a different perspective.” They said, “No, you can’t do that.” I said, “Well, sure I can.” There was this great consternation; they wanted me to consider just being absent (the day when a resolution supporting the repeal of DADT was to be considered). That struck me as this strict adherence to the far right and that’s bad.

The other thing that’s bad is that there’s not a desire, even when the principles line up, there’s not a desire to solve problems. It’s just games-playing. It’s political brinksmanship. So, I go work out a tax-reform deal with (Gov.) Jerry Brown to close a loophole that only benefits large out-of-state corporations. Now closing that loophole by itself would be great for California. It makes California more competitive. California’s CEOs like Paul Jacobs of Qualcomm, Greg Lucier of Life Technologies; I could go on and on – they said please do this because the loophole gives our out-of-state competitors an unfair advantage. Boom. We close it, but we actually give the revenue to provide some relief to small businesses. That brings a billion dollars in new revenue into the state. Jerry Brown agreed that we would cut taxes for small businesses that are hiring because that gets people back to work; we would lower the sales tax on durable goods to encourage manufacturing. We’re losing those manufacturing jobs and those are the jobs of the middle class. And then we would give relief to the working poor, who have been hit hardest by the recession.

Did that bill make it to the floor?

Oh, I got it out of the Assembly – but barely. But it got killed in the Senate. Republicans opposed it. Republicans came up and said, “Wow, we’re going to make California more competitive by eliminating the loophole that encourages businesses to get out of California; we’re going to cut taxes on small businesses, manufacturers and the working poor.” And they said, “What a great thing.” I said, “So, you’re going to vote for it?” And they said no.

Because it takes away one of their foils against Democrats?

We can’t make Jerry Brown look good.

So, along that line; you have been criticized by some of the candidate asseessments that have been put out by other campaigns concerning you. We’ve looked at those, and it’s based upon two tax votes and two LGBT-equality votes. I understand what the two LGBT-equality votes are about: You voted to allow transgender people get their driver’s license in their new gender, and you voted for the FAIR Edtucation Act, which says, LGBT People do exist and our history can be taught in schools. Tell our readers about the two tax (votes) …

I’ve been scorecarded by so many different organizations. One of those was the “single sales” tax (a law that San Diego’s biotech consortium, Biocom credits Fletcher for helping to get passed, which rewards companies for capital investment for things like building constructed in the state – link to a previously published article about the so-called single sales tax). The other one I think they’re probably talking about is one I took a temendous amount of grief for – Renewable Portfolio Standard, RPS, which basicaly was just making a committment to renewable energies. People like (Councilman Carl) DeMaio and others have mischaracterized those two. They’re both job creators that make California a more competitive place. There are so many places where I go in the state where industries like soytech are hiring people.

With the advantage California has in the cleantech business, how would you work here in San Diego to capitalize upon that?

Well, we have a huge opportunity in those fields. We already have the beginnings of clusters in renewable energy, algae-based energy, solar, and so many other ways. The whole thought of being the world’s most innovative city in terms of changing and rebranding our image is about really nurturing an culture of innovation and cultivating those innovative jobs. You do it by streamlining your regulatory process. You know, Sapphire Engergy has an incentive to move here. I ask so many CEOs what they need to creat jobs. They say, “we have the jobs; we need a trained workforce.” So it’s about education. We’ve called for the creation of a STEAM Academy – science, technology, engineering, the arts and math as a feeder school to get those students transfered into those programs in the UC system.

Would your STEAM Academy be located in the southern part of the city?

I don’t care; it doesn’t matter where it’s located.

Would it be a priority to make easily accessible to economically challenged students?

Sure. I mean the problem with our education system today is we’re not producing the workers we need for today’s market. The second problem is that the education system is the equalizer that get’s you to the American Dream. I mean, we don’t promise you equality of outcome. We don’t give everyone the same size house; we don’t even promise you equality of ease (to get an education). You know, neither of my parents went to college. It was harder for me and my brother. That’s OK; we’re not complaining. It will be easier for my boys and that’s good. But we do promise you equality of access; and we’re not providing that now in the public schools. When 58 percent of Latinos can’t read at grade level, that’s immoral.

…

We have a city that has not seen an equal distribution (of resources). You go to the community in the southeast San Diego community of Stockton; they don’t even have street lights. Now, can you imagine if Kensington didn’t have street lights? We can’t even fathom that. And I’m not mad at Kensington; don’t get me wrong: I love Kensington, and I’m glad they have street lights. My point is, how do we have a city where one community has been allowed to fall so far behind? Barrio Logan hasn’t had an updated community plan since 1978. I was talking to a guy with a restaurant in San Ysidro; Don Felix has been trying for like 20 years to get a sidewalk fixed. Our whole city has infrastructure problems. As mayor, I’m going to focus on rebuilding the entire city.

You talk about the city in a wholistic way; (Congressman) Bob Filner talks about it in terms of neighborhoods. Are you two talking about the same approach?

Yeah; but I am talking about neighborhoods too.

Do you think Downtown is done?

Well, no area is “done.” But I think Downtown has had a disproportionate share of prosperity and I think our focus has to be on the entire city; not just on one area. Now, where Bob and I may disagree in tone might be that I believe you rebuild the city by lifting up the entire city, not be dismantling one part of the city. So, I’m not going to pit one neighborhood against the other.

Let’s talk a little bit about the state’s budget. Are you in support of Gov. Jerry Brown’s current plan?

No.

You’re not. Why not?

Well there are a couple of things that are wrong with it. One of the biggest problems we have in the tax code is volatility. It is tremendously volatile and creates this boom-and-bust cycle. His plan only adds to that volatility.

In what way?

Well it increases taxes on the most volatile aspects of the econonomy – those at the top. I don’t think adding taxes to a broken tax code is the way to solve a systemic problem.

Do you think the state takes in enough revenue in terms of a percentage of the economy.

I think the state needs to grow; then it will take in a significant larger amount revenue. But you do that by reforming the tax code by  actually incentivizing growth through the tax code. There are also a lot of simplification of the regulatory process that will help grow the economy. One thing I know is that the public has been very clear about over and over and over again: that they’re not going to pay more.

Well that’s kind of a universal dynamic. No one ever wants to pay more taxes. Isn’t it generally the responsiblity of leaders to say, “Look, here’s what we need to provide the government you say you want?” It’s the free-rider concept, which says everyone’s going to answer the question, how much would you like to pay? with an answer lower than what would be their proportional share in hopes that someone else will pick up the difference. Relating that to a local issue: pension reform. Do you you support the pension-reform plan? Won’t people under 55 be cut off and, in affect, be paying for the pensions of older retirees to remain higher by giving up retirement money from their pensions?

I support pension reform. Under this plan, as it was explained to me by TIAA Creff, a well-respected annuity company, employees with pensions will get seventy-five percent income replacement. Seventy-five percent; that’s good … When you ask employees if they’d rather have a five-year freeze on earning pension money from salary increases or not have a job, they overwhelmingly choose pension reform. The city made a series of very bad decisions. In the 1990s, they made the decision to finance a stadium and a convention center with pensions money. They some people in upper management  retire early and take more money than they should have. That all created a $2.1 billion liability that everyone agrees we have to address.

You’re not saying that bulding the ballpark and the convention center were bad ideas.

(Emphatically) No; but it’s a bad idea to under fund the pension system to do it.

How would you have done it?

Well, I don’t know. I wouldn’t have taken money out of the pension system. I would have figured something else out.

Would you not have raised any taxes to do it?

There’s ways to do it. Taking money out of the pension system is just as bad as making bad decisions to give workers overly generous pensions …

Who do give credit for the pension reform plan?

The mayor. This has been the most contentious issue for the last ten years. But if I’m mayor, we’re going to address this problem and we’re going to move on. We have to move on because there are other problems in the city that we need to address. I’m not going to spend the next decade talking about pensions. When are we going to talk about rebuilding our economy; when are we going to talk about rebuilding our education system; when are we going to talk about acquiring new open spaces; when are we going to talk about dedicating canyon lands; about getting into compliance with the federal Clean Water Act; about rebuilding our neighborhoods and our parks and making our communities safe with the right amount of public safety resources..?

Mayor Sanders has been a leader in the fight for marriage equality. He’s been the co-chair of a group called Mayors for the Freedom to Marry. Will you pick up that mantel?

I would do the same.

You would take a place in that campaign?

Yes. When an issue’s important, you have to be willing to take a stand and speak out for it. When I gave the floor speach on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, some people were very upset. But set that aside. There was an entire group of people who said, “hey, I’ve never thought about it. I’ve always been opposed to it. I listened to what you said and I thought about it; and you now what? You’re right.”

Those were Republicans?

Yeah. They just had to hear it from a different perspective. The problem in politics is people only listen to one side. They’re afraid to listen. People tell me their side of an issue and I think it makes sense. They want to know if I’m going to support it, and I tell them I don’t know yet, because I have to listen to the other side and see what they have to say. As mayor I’ll do the same.

I also had people say, “Hey, I’ve always believed the same thing, but I never felt like it was OK to say it out loud. But if a combat-veteran Marine from San Diego can say, then I can certainly say it.”

That’s the big issue for us: marriage-equality. And just to make absolutely clear, you would stand up and fight for it?

Absolutely.

What about ENDA? The Employment Non-Discrimination Act. Would you actively push for congress to pass ENDA?

Yes. I mean I’d have to look at the policy in detail. But in principal, yes.

By supporting our community in those LGBT-specific issues, you’ve eliminated a whole set of other LGBT-equality questions. Those two issues cover many sets of equal rights. So let’s move on. Do you support the Dream Act?

My problem is when states come in and try to take on federal issues on their own. I opposed Prop. 187. I oppose what they did in Arizona. It was wrong. I can support a federal Dream Act.

Given your recent change to Independent status, will you support someone in the presidential election.

I don’t anticipate being active in that election. I’m focused on local issues.

Thank you for the interview.

NOTE: While there are four major candidates for mayor, San Diego LGBT Weekly has only published three Q&As (including this one) to help voters in the LGBT community decide who’s right for them. We expect candidate and city councilman Carl DeMaio will continue to not accept or acknowledge our several, multi-modal invitations to be a part of this series. The invitation stands. And, as we’ve previously committed: Neither this editor nor my publisher would write any commentary relating to Councilman DeMaio in the issue that would include his interview. – Ed.

Allen Clark

It’s all about words this week – spoken and read.

I have praised San Diego’s tight little literary community several times in the past. If you enjoy writing or listening to writers perform their work then there is always something going on. This week for example you can enjoy a couple of events.

First up is Vermin on the Mount, a San Diego spin off of what is described as “an irreverent reading series”. Originally organized in L.A.’s Chinatown by local writer (and recent Reader’s Digest short form winner) Jim Ruland, Vermin has happened here in San Diego a few times now. If you enjoy great writing and passionate writers, good humor with a punk rock vibe, then you won’t want to miss it. Saturday, May 5 at 7 p.m. at 3RDSPACE in University Heights. Vermin.blogs.com

Allen Clark

Then, don’t miss local gay veteran Allen Clark reading his riveting story about his experience in Vietnam at Space4Art Sunday, May 6 at 7 p.m. I have heard the story before and it is well worth your time, especially if you have military experience. Clark is participating in How To Tell A True War Story: Veteran Writers Take the Stage, an event sponsored by Grossmont College. The showcase of veteran writers will perform in concert with a visit from author Tim O’Brien. The eight local voices aim to describe the unseen and unpredictable side of war. There is a $5 suggested donation. Sdspace4art.org.

Bonnie Dumanis\Source: Bonnie Dumanis for Mayor

The political landscape in the San Diego mayor’s race has changed dramatically. Recent polls show City Councilman Carl DeMaio and Assemblyman Nathan Fletcher in a virtual dead heat. Republican DeMaio is at 28 percent, with Independent Fletcher close behind at 26 percent, and Democrat Congressman Bob Filner bringing up the flank with 20 percent. Republican District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis is polling at 13 percent.

As a veteran of several political campaigns, a month out from actual voting is the perfect time to read the political tea leaves and they say that Bonnie Dumanis has a dilemma.

While many thought the mayoral race would be a cakewalk for Dumanis, nothing has been further from the truth. The Republican Party ultimately endorsed her rival DeMaio. Her rival Fletcher captured the endorsement of the Police Officer’s Association, then became an Independent and captured those who seem frustrated with our two party system. Filner has set his sights on getting through the primary by being the only Democrat.

Dumanis is the top law enforcement officer in the county but the police and her party are not supporting her. She has been clearly outflanked by her competitors. So why is Dumanis remaining in the race?

She says, “The polls are all over the place right now and show that all candidates are at different levels, different times, depending on the questions that you ask.” Dumanis also said that the same polling company had her down 22 percent one week before she was elected district attorney. That may have been true in her previous race but there is no indication that there is any Dumanis momentum in the mayoral race.

Dumanis would have to win the majority of the 10 percent who are undecided and peel off support from DeMaio, Fletcher and Filner to get to the runoff in November. This scenario is highly unlikely, unless one of her competitors implodes.

Bonnie Dumanis has a couple of dilemmas. If she stays in the race through the June 5 primary and loses, Dumanis will have a target on her back in her next race for district attorney. She will be viewed as a weak candidate and people will line up to oppose her. Of course the same is true if she drops out early.

Dumanis’ additional dilemma is who she will support if she drops out or loses June 5. If she supports DeMaio, the majority of the LGBT community and progressives will view it as a betrayal. DeMaio does not have a lot of support within his LGBT community or with progressives.

If Dumanis throws her support behind Fletcher or Filner, or doesn’t endorse DeMaio, she becomes a pariah in the Republican Party. A dilemma indeed.

There is only one person who wants Dumanis to stay in the race until June 5 and that is Carl DeMaio. Dumanis’ supporters would most likely become supporters of Fletcher or Filner, which could leave DeMaio out in the cold come the June primary.

Given all of these complex choices, will Dumanis stay or will she go? What will Bonnie do?

STAMPP CORBIN

PUBLISHER

San Diego LGBT Weekly

LGBTweekly.com

Hypocrisy: Just what do they mean by ‘not covering’ the mayor’s race?

Dear Editor,

Most of your readers are familiar with that other publication’s stated policy of objective, non-coverage of the mayor’s race.

I received this following statement from the SDGLN editor a few weeks ago:

“We have published the following formal statement: ‘SDGLN is not reporting on the 2012 San Diego mayoral race because SDGLN publisher Johnathan Hale has a personal relationship with City Councilmember Carl DeMaio, who is running for mayor. SDGLN will also not be making an endorsement in the race.’ This is because journalism ethics prevents the staff of SDGLN from creating even the remotest appearance of a conflict of interest.”

Two weeks ago, SDGLN reprinted in full a Turning Point profile article about Carl DeMaio from the San Diego Union Tribune. The article was both flattering and heart-warming. It was the first of four; each profiling those running for mayor. At the time, SDGLN took the position that reprinting the article of another publication was not “reporting” on the mayor’s race.

The U-T has now published Turning Point profiles of Dumanis, Filner and Fletcher. None of these other profiles have been reprinted in SDGLN.

I wrote to the editor of SDGLN, questioning whether this selective reprinting of articles favorable to DeMaio, while not reprinting any articles about Dumanis, Filner or Fletcher was consistent with “journalism ethics” and avoidance of “even the remotest appearance of a conflict of interest.” To my great surprise, I received no reply from the staff of SDGLN.

To any objective observer, it is obvious that SDGLN actively covers Mr. DeMaio favorably. Equally obvious is the SDGLN policy of reprinting any third-party article about DeMaio while failing to do so for Dumanis, Filner or Fletcher.

The ownership of SDGLN has the absolute right to be as partisan as they wish in this political race. But they should not be permitted to claim to be concerned for “journalism ethics” or the avoidance of “even the remotest appearance of a conflict of interest.” That is self-serving crap, at best. The hypocrisy leaves a bad taste in any reader’s mouth.

The fair market value of the one-sided reprinting of the many articles favorable to DeMaio should be reported as political contributions to DeMaio. And SDGLN should be honest with its readers and cease this sham claim to ethics and objectivity.

DAVID LUNDIN

Pacific Beach

Campaign civility

Dear Editor,

Recently, Ken Williams, editor of the San Diego Gay and Lesbian News service, wrote an op-ed in which he issued a call for more civility in political discourse – in particular highlighting events during the recent San Diego mayoral debate at The Center. He decried someone shouting out the word “liar” while Carl DeMaio was in the middle of denying he had ever attacked an opponent for their pro- LGBT political stances. It is quite ironic and a little troubling that Mr. Williams sees fit to use this incident as a cornerstone for calling for more civility in our political discourse.

Carl DeMaio has a decade-long history in San Diego, and this history is replete with examples of over the top claims, political bluster and an abundance of not-so-nice political discourse. Does anybody remember the billboard truck Carl hired to drive around town claiming a San Diego city librarian was making more money than a four star general? In any event, the mere fact that someone is calling someone else a liar does not make said statement necessarily uncivil – if the statement is true. The fact of the matter is Carl DeMaio IS a liar, and should not be able to hide behind contrived ideals of civil political discourse to try and get people to stop calling him a liar.

The fact of the matter is that Carl DeMaio (or someone in his campaign), as part of his effort to gain the San Diego County GOP endorsement, sent a 14 page packet of information, attacking Nathan Fletcher’s conservative credentials. I see no problem with this, and I doubt anybody else does. What we have a problem with is Carl’s use of “family values” organizations to help make his point. The group in question is called “Capitol Resource Family Impact,” and their Web site is capitolresource.org. You can check them out yourself. The irony of a gay man, ostensibly proud of his community, using a “family values” group to attack a fellow Republican should not be lost on anyone.

This call for civility is particularly galling coming from the editor of a news source owned by Jonathan Hale, Carl’s partner. My acquaintance, William Rodriguez-Kennedy, was recently likened to a monkey flinging feces at a wall – from the OFFICIAL Twitter account of SDGLN. For SDGLN to piously and self-righteously call for civility after that little episode, and still claim the mantle of an ethical news organization, is the height of hypocrisy

If SDGLN wishes to have more civil discourse in our community, perhaps they ought to tell Carl to be straightforward and honest with the LGBT community. Tell him to either own up to what he did or apologize – don’t expect to lie and get away with it. Perhaps, instead of dancing around the obvious conflict of interest with Carl’s mayoral campaign, they ought to be straightforward as well – why not just report on the campaign and place a disclaimer at the bottom of every story about the campaign? This game of using “independent” news such as Gay San Diego is not (I hope) fooling anyone. Do your own search on SDGLN’s site and see if you can find a negative story on Carl DeMaio. You won’t.

Thomas Bollman

Hillcrest, San Diego

In 1800, Thomas Jefferson, for the first and last time in U.S. history, became a vice president running against his president.

Things got ugly fast. Jefferson’s camp accused President John Adams of having a “hideous hermaphroditical character, which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman.”

In return, Adams’ men called Vice President Jefferson “a mean-spirited, low-lived fellow, the son of a half-breed Indian squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto father.”

As the slurs piled on, Adams was labeled a fool, a hypocrite, a criminal, and a tyrant, while Jefferson was branded a weakling, an atheist, a libertine, and a coward.

Jefferson hired a hatchet man named James Callendar to do his smearing for him. Adams, on the other hand, considered himself above such tactics. To Jefferson’s credit, Callendar proved incredibly effective, convincing many Americans that Adams desperately wanted to attack France. Although the claim was completely untrue, voters bought it, and Jefferson won the election.

Jefferson paid a price for his dirty campaign tactics, though. Callendar served jail time for the slander he wrote about Adams, and when he emerged from prison in 1801, he felt Jefferson still owed him.

After Jefferson did little to appease him, Callendar broke a story in 1802 that had only been a rumor until then – that the president was having an affair with one of his slaves, Sally Hemings. In a series of articles, Callendar claimed that Jefferson had lived with Hemings in France and that she had given birth to five of his children.

This article is courtesy of San Diego LGBT Weekly media partner, CNN © 2008/2012.

Email invitation to Roger Hedgecock’s fundraiser for Carl DeMaio

Some people think that I am not a supporter of Carl DeMaio. The truth is that I cannot stomach those who put their personal career above the well-being of our community. DeMaio recently stated that he is not running on social issues; this is evidenced by his fundraiser hosted by former mayor of San Diego, Roger Hedgecock (see invitation).

As I previously stated in my message in our October 20, 2011 issue (issue 49) Roger Hedgecock is now a right wing, conservative radio talk-show host. Hedgecock has made many attacks on the LGBT community on his talk show, as well as in print publications and during interviews.

Infamously, in 1994 Hedgecock petitioned for his group, the “Normal People,” to march in the Pride parade. Due to his group’s intention to protest and disrupt Pride, the Pride Committee refused his request, resulting in a lawsuit filed in San Diego Superior Court. Hedgecock argued that the First Amendment guaranteed him the right to participate in the parade, and accused the LGBT community of discriminating against his group because they were heterosexual.

Hedgecock also used the LGBT community as a wedge issue during the Gov. Gray Davis recall election stating that Davis was going to sign a bill giving rights to “transsexuals … because he (Davis) needs the radical leftist gay and lesbian community to support him.”

Here are just a few of Hedgecock’s other notable quotes:

“This gay thing has gone too far. These activists think that beyond tolerance they can club 99 percent of Americans who aren’t gay into acceptance and approval … when you try and get me to say that gay sex is the same as any other kind of sex – that’s not the way I feel about it, and I don’t mind saying so.”

“The only reason gays want to be in the military is because ‘that’s where the boys are.’”

Roger Hedgecock

“Just as illegal aliens seem to have more ‘rights’ than citizens do, homosexuals claim their ‘civil rights’ prevail over everyone else’s civil rights.”

That last quote is from 2009. Exactly who would be interested in paying $150 to attend this event for Carl DeMaio hosted by this homophobe? Earlier this year, I publicly asked DeMaio to repudiate Hedgecock’s endorsement; but what did our community get – a doubling down by DeMaio of his acceptance of homophobe Hedgecock’s support. I considered attending but could not stomach the concept of giving $150 to stand around with such an anti-LGBT bigot. Of course, this could be one of the hearts and minds that DeMaio believes he is changing by remaining in the Republican Party.

I would love for San Diego to have its first LGBT mayor but not at the expense of LGBT equality. What say you DeMaio?

STAMPP CORBIN

PUBLISHER

San Diego LGBT Weekly

LGBTweekly.com

–

Cover photo credit: CarlDeMaio.com

Dear Editor,

… (Carl DeMaio’s life partner’s Web site) states, Carl’s “personal relationship” with (Johnathan) Hale means they won’t cover the race.

It’s all well and good until you go to their page and look at the tag for Mayors Race which is currently two pages and, yes, mostly made up of press releases, the bulk of which are Carl’s but there are some very noticeable exceptions – a story dated from Jan. 24 of this year with a byline of SDGLN Staff Reporter called “Carl DeMaio Releases Plan to Create Jobs in San Diego;” another story talking about “Gay Supports” or really a lack thereof from Gay San Diego; a write up about the then upcoming Forum; and finally the worst offender, “Carl Rises Above Troubled Upbringing” by the U-T. Well, I hate to break it to SDGLN but a lot of people overcome adversity: Madonna’s mom died when she was 5 but the singer later became Queen of Pop; Kylie Minogue had breast cancer; and I was molested by my next door neighbor and have dealt with homelessness as a youth, drug addiction issues and HIV to become San Diego’s most loved and loathed Drag Nun. Whereas Madge and Minnie’s struggles are important because they influence their body of art and mine explain my passion and drive for helping, the only thing I care about with politicians is their stance on issues I find important. And sorry Carl, as a gay man my rights are a big deal to me on all levels and to people like Mayor Bloomberg, Mayor Sanders and 82 other members of Mayors for Equality. Unless Carl is putting on some “mantyhose” and stilettos and dancing with Kazaky at Pride to a song called “Mayor Gone Wild” I don’t really need to out him about his personal life just the issues.

Now that’s all laid out, let’s look at the issue: the LGBT Forum’s lack of coverage (on Hale’s Web site). Probably the most important event for the SD LGBT community is ignored by its “largest news source,” for what reason? They have already broken their policy to publish fluff on Carl, which makes me believe they are trying to hide from their readers the fact that most LGBT people don’t like Carl, contrary to the story they are telling to sell.

Eric Hufford aka Sister Iona Dubble-Wyde

Assemblyman Nathan Fletcher (L) and Rep. Bob Filner

Why I stood up during the debate …

American journalism is sometimes referred to as “The Fourth Estate” – a fourth quasi-branch of government – more specifically, a fourth check-and-balance on the power of our government and elected officials. In fact, the role of the press as defender of freedom is enshrined within the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Thom Senzee

But constitutional inclusion comes with special responsibilities. During my 17 years as a journalist, I’ve done my best to abide by three rules. Rule No. 1: Do no harm. Rule No. 2: Get the whole story – and get it ethically. Rule No. 3: Never become the news.

Apparently, I broke Rule No. 3 last week. As San Diego CW 6 television news put it after the LGBT Mayoral Candidates Forum at The Center, “One reporter interrupted the debate to show his displeasure that candidate DeMaio planned to leave early without answering questions.”

After asking an organizer if members of the press should fill out a question card, I was led to believe that reporters would be availed of a question period before the candidates left the stage. I was told that I should NOT fill out a question card. That made sense because it would be unorthodox to ask reporters to fill out audience question cards at a community forum. Restraining reporters from follow-up questions would, at minimum, be outside First Amendment norms.

As the clock ticked on, it became clear to me that something was amiss. When I sought clarification, I was told, there would not be a question period for the media until after the debate – until after the leading mayoral candidate, City Councilman Carl DeMaio, had departed.

Prior to the debate, there had been a lot of speculation about DeMaio planning to leave 15 minutes early, thereby sidestepping media questions that would have been posed while he was on stage before a mostly LGBT audience. In fact, as San Diego LGBT Weekly had reported would happen, it was announced at the start of the debate that the councilman would indeed leave early.

DeMaio ostentatiously ordered an aide, twice, to inform his next engagement he would be 15 minutes late. That was after Assemblyman Nathan Fletcher passionately called DeMaio to account for increasing his chances of obtaining the county Republican Central Committee’s endorsement by lambasting Fletcher for supporting LGBT rights.

With the realization that DeMaio was, whether by design or by default, effectively pulling a fast one on our community – and feeling the weight of my responsibility to act as an agent of the Fourth Estate, i.e., as the questioning voice of our community, I fought my personal fear of embarrassment and rose to ask Mr. DeMaio two questions: First, would he be seeking the endorsement of the Log Cabin Republicans? The LCR rescinded its endorsement of Fletcher who earlier that day had left the GOP. Secondly, did DeMaio regret his campaign’s use of the Assemblyman Fletcher’s support for LGBT equality as a means of winning a party endorsement?

Remember my three rules? Do no harm; get the story ethically; don’t become news. I went back to refresh my understanding of the Society of Professional Journalists’ code of ethics. As far as “doing no harm,” SPJ doesn’t go as far as saying journalists must do no harm. Rather, SPJ instructs us to “minimize harm.”

Regarding “getting the story ethically,” SPJ goes further, saying journalists must not only be ethical. They must also be courageous. From SPJ: “Journalists should be honest, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information.”

As far as not becoming the news, that’s not specifically addressed by SPJ; it’s just something every journalist knows. However, as an aide to a member of Congress told me after the “incident,” if a reporter asking a question is news, then we’ve got a problem in San Diego.

My only regret is that I cowered when I was admonished by a row of DeMaio supporters sitting in front of me to “sit down,” because, as one of them yelled, “No one wants to hear what you have to say.”

Thom Senzee

Editor