Slog - The Stranger's Blog

Line Out

The Music Blog

« Goodbye, Hoss, Another Loss | Rhymes with "Bone" »

Monday, August 28, 2006

Pedersen Plays the Gay Card

Posted by on August 28 at 12:02 PM

Or maybe it’s the P-I that’s playing the gay card for him. In any case, today’s article brings yet another opportunity to wonder: Is homosexuality (and $140,00) the magic formula for winning in Seattle’s 43rd District this year?

The P-I says:

Of the many qualities and qualifications Jamie Pedersen brings to the race to take Seattle’s open seat in the state House of Representatives, one may carry more weight than all the rest.

Pedersen is gay.

The evidence:

The 43rd District is smack in the middle of the metropolitan area with the nation’s third-highest concentration of same-sex couples in the nation, according to 2004 data from The Gay and Lesbian Atlas.

So, being the only gay candidate could matter a lot.

And…

Last month, the State Supreme Court upheld the state’s Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits gay marriage… Political observers say the anger in the gay community generated by the court ruling could mobilize gay voters. That alone could influence the outcome of the September primary, which, in the solidly Democratic district will almost certainly determine the winner.

Close readers of the Slog will know that we’ve been on both sides of the debate over whether Pedersen’s sexual preference is important. Our endorsments, out this week, should settle where we stand on that score — or, at least, where a majority of our endorsement board stands. Until then, what do you think?

Is Pedersen’s homosexuality going to make you vote for him?


CommentsRSS icon

Just Say NO! to identity politics.

Anyone should be weary of someone saying "Hey, you're a ____ and I'm a ______, therefore you should vote for me," especially when its not an earned characteristic.

Being gay does not make you effective. Being gay doesn't mean you know how to legislate. Being gay will only be an asset to you in 1% of the things you'd deal with as a legislator, even if you are from the 43rd, because, let's face it, most legislative issues have nothing to do with being gay.

This is a time for members of the 43rd to elect someone that is the best choice for all of the cross-sections of the district--gay, straight, enviro, education, health care, etc etc.

If you ask me, the most approachable, palatable, and qualified candidate is Bill Sherman. I have no doubt he'd represent my gay interests just as well as Pedersen, but would serve all my other values as well.

Its kind of insulting to be marginalized as just a gay voter, don't you think?

I would be inclined to vote for Pedersen on account of his homosexuality except for one thing: Pedersen himself. He may be a good lawyer but he's a lousy campaigner and will be a terrible legislator. It will be a shame if he gets through just because he's gay.

I WILL NOT vote for Jamie just because he is gay. I don't think he has a grasp on any real issues within the larger LGBT community. I had a conversation with Bill Sherman this weekend at Purr, that's right Bill was at a gay bar, and I was very impressed with his coalition building skills and his willingness to "go to voters" to understand what issues are important to them. I know that he will be an effective legislator in Olympia and he doesn't need to play identity politics to get there. One things for sure though-- he gets the vote hands down for the cutest guys in his campaign, where does he get them? ;-) Can I have their numbers?

I'm embarrassed to say that I have no mind of my own and will vote for whomever the Stranger endorses. Seriously. And why call where I live the 'gay' area when it truly has become the JUNKIE area? I live next to The Quinault (the junkie haven apartment reported on in The Stranger about a month ago) and just last night voyeuristically/accidentally watched two guys shoot up in their Quinaualt lair as I sat in my apartment next door. I fucking hate Capital Hill, and as a lesbian, I guess I should move to Shoreline or something.

Okay, unrelated rant, but still....now I'm mad at Jamie Pederson for playing the gay card.

Pederson was a leader in the crowd to take the judicial route in marriage equality. The trouble is he lost, and lost badly, setting that route back years, not only in this state but in many others as courts site the "reasoning" of Madsen and Alexander.

According to the Art of War one rule to live by is not to engage in battle unless you are reasonably certain of the outcome. If we had a better panel of Justices--and perhaps it would have only taken a couple more years and only one vote difference--we would have won. Also, possibly, there was something wrong with the presentation, for which Jaime bears some responsibility, such that it allowed the justices to come up with such a wacked-out ruling. As it stands, no court can revisit this question for a decade or more without it seeming politically motivated.

That leaves the legisature, and adding one more gay to that scene isn't going to make the difference, particularly if he comes from the 43rd. Now, if he were running against Pam Roach or the Senator from Mars that would be different. But, he isn't, so it's not.

There are a lot of very good, very qualified candidates in this race, but narrowing one's vote on the sole basis of identity politics is as abhorent in gays as it is for heteros only voting for straights. I need more than shared sexual identity in determining who my legislator should be.

Outside of the gay thing, Pederson hasn't made the case to me why he would distinguish himself as a legislator, in the same way that Murray and Anderson have. Legislator Dave Upthegrove ran his campaign, in a suburban district, no less, as policy wonk. He won and the legislature is richer for it. He's gay, too--yaay! Same with Mueller--yaay! But I need more than just gay.

I grew up in the 43rd, but have moved to other Seattle environs - that said, if I had a vote, I'd vote for Bill Sherman. He's a great campaigner, and a great human being. He'll bring a passion for the job that we don't usually see from the rest of our Seattle delegation (Murray, Chopp, and a few others excluded, of course).

There's another candidate forum--this afternoon at 4 pm at SU's Law School. Any suggestions on what questions we should pose to the candidates?

I was driving in the more wealth areas of the 43rd on Saturday - yes, I know, you all like to pretend there's no such thing, but it's true - and I noticed I mostly say Dick Kelley signs and the odd Pedersen sign, but no site of the Jim Street or Bill Sherman signs, or even signs for my neighbor Stephanie Pure.

So far, based on how actual voting goes for primaries, it's looking like a race between Dick Kelley, Bill Sherman, and Jim Street.

But that's just my feedback based on signs.

Oh, and I LOVE the BBQ place just south of Madison ... yum!

Lola - if you live in my precinct, don't forget to vote for me for PCO, ok?

ELI UPDATE, via The New York Times, 23 August 2006:

Conflict of Interest Is Raised in N.S.A. Ruling

By ERIC LICHTBLAU

WASHINGTON, Aug. 22 — The federal judge who ruled last week that President Bush’s eavesdropping program was unconstitutional is a trustee and an officer of a group that has given at least $125,000 to the American Civil Liberties Union in Michigan, a watchdog group said Tuesday.

The group, Judicial Watch, a conservative organization here that found the connection, said the link posed a possible conflict for the judge, Anna Diggs Taylor, and called for further investigation.

“The system relies on judges to exercise good judgment, and we need more information and more explanation about what the court’s involvement was in support of the A.C.L.U.,” said Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, which gained attention in the 1990’s for ethics accusations against President Bill Clinton. ...

So append conflict of interest to many good reasons to be conflicted about Taylor's unreasoned ruling. Check the Washington Post for others.

will,

i saw lots of sherman signs in the north 23rd part of the district, near the UW and the cut. also down on madison as you head past 19th to the lake.

keep your eyes peeled?

I'm just telling you what I saw on the route I took. Lots of guys going to the tennis and yachting and golf clubs and so with their wives all dressed up.

I don't think near the UW counts, quite frankly. It's overpopulated with people using their PhD's in academia.

PCO...Precinct-something..? Uh, don't I look like an ignoramus...?

PCO = Precinct Committee Officer

It's great that the other candidates are supportive of gay and lesbian equality - however - they, personally, have no interest in advancing our issues. We need Jamie to be our voice and frankly, he's done more to advance GLBT issues than any of the other candidates.
The Supreme Court's marriage ruling was an open, glaring and scandalous issue of lies that had more to do with political expediancy than any actual evidence.

Dan Savage wrote a SLOG post a few weeks ago, where he basically did a 180. Previously, he'd been trashing Pedersen on a variety of minor issues. But after the shitty DOMA ruling, he reversed and said Pedersen should be elected as a counter to the DOMA ruling.

On an emotional level, I completely agree with Dan. The DOMA ruling seriously pissed me off. No point in going on a tirade here about how fucked up it was, but suffice to say, I'm seriously pissed off.

Sure, in an ideal world, Pedersen's (or any other candidate's) sexual orientation shouldn't make any difference in the election. Likewise, my orientation shouldn't make any difference in who I'm allowed to marry. But the supreme court has decided that my sexual orientation is an issue. Fine. Fuck you then.

While all of the other candidates have endorsed the concept of gay marriage, none of them have convinced me that they will actively aggressively go to bat over the issue more strongly than Pedersen will. Since the court just gave gays the big finger, the only recourse left is either the legislature or an initiative. Practical reality would tell us that an initiative will never pass, so that leaves the legislature. It took almost 30 years to get the legislature to add sexual orientation to the basic state civil rights act. It will take more than vague passive support to get gay marriage passed. It will take active constant campaigning campaigning, probably for years, to get it passed.

So unless one of the other candidates can convince me that they will actively and aggressively champion the cause of gay marriage, for years if necessary, then, yah, I'm gonna vote for Pedersen because he's gay.

Someone stole my Bill Sherman yard sign on Friday night. Probably one of Pedersen's thugs!

SDA, you're certainly free to do what you wish with your vote, but to clarify one point in your post, Dan Savage did not endorse Jamie Pedersen after the DOMA ruling came out. He laid out some of the reasons that he was considering endorsing Pedersen, despite all of his other reservations about Jamie. When the Stranger's Election Control Board makes its endorsements known soon, we may also find out where Dan himself came out on this question.

Also, if we follow the identity-politics logic expressed by some on this thread, shouldn't the citizens of the 37th Legislative District be having a conversation about whether noted caucasian Sen. Adam Kline really has enough of a personal stake in race & social justice issues to adequately represent his constituents of color? I'm being facetious, of course, to make the point that sometimes the strongest advocates in Olympia are the unexpected ones.

We have enough Gay representation in State government. Do not vote for Pedersen. We don't need another gay in government.

Cory,

Do you have an example of unexpected advocates in Olympia coming out to support us? If anything, this story has been about our alleged allies (Barbara Madsen, Charles Johnson, Gerry Alexander) ruthlessly stabbing us in the back. They used almost the exact same language to uphold DOMA that racist judges in the past used to uphold bans on interracial marriage (ex. Anti-discrimination laws don't apply because neither blacks nor whites can marry someone of the other race. Sound familiar?)
Our Democrats, especially Governor Gregoire, are exceeding cautious politicians who would rather not deal with so-called "hot button" issues at all. It just makes it that much easier to sweep us under the rug. Having representation like Jamie in the legislature is the only way to counter the hateful, idiotic lies that will soon be coming to a State House near you. That's reality.

Andrew,

To keep this post short and readable, I'll give just one example (the aggressively non-lesbian Senate Majority Leader Sen. Lisa Brown of Spokane, who was surpassed in her efforts to pass the Anderson-Murray civil rights bill only by Murray himself).

If you're looking to move away from reflexively cautious politicians (I'm with you on that) I might suggest you look further than Jamie Pedersen, who practically had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the Andersen case at its outset.

I think it’s reasonable to want one of our three representatives from the 43rd to be gay. We do--and will--have one: Representative, and soon to be Senator, Ed Murray.

Here’s another question: do we want to be the *only* district in Seattle with *no* women representing us in Olympia?

I guess I have a difficult time believing that straight people would be as interested in advancing equality legislation for gays and lesbians as a gay legislator would be. In a better world we wouldn't have to ask this question, but we're not in Canada.
Many straight people, even our allies it seems, still think that being gay is a choice, which is as preposterous as asking when exactly they chose to be heterosexual. They simply can't relate.
I want to believe that the other candidates would aggresively fight for our rights on principle, but I have my doubts.

Oh, and by the way, you may have noticed that the Republicans have won avalanche landslides over the past 12 years by playing "identity politics," like white, Christian, zealous-deranged-bigot, etc. Seems to appeal to voters, eh?

I'm not voting for Pedersen because he's gay; I'm voting for him because I'm gay. Sure, I'll change my mind if he does something effing stupid before the primary, but in a field of good liberals, the identity card has real meaning at this moment. The people fulminating against identity politics really bug me when they say this kind of choice is never valid. Really, never?

I do not live in the 43 now, but have in the past. Jamie has my 50.00 and support.......isn't the phrase identity politics a right wing slur to discredit the move for blacks, women and queers to have their own political voices?

The Stranger often borrows right wing stuff, cutsie, bootsie...... or maybe two or three is enough? One two many? And yes, if Dodson were an out Lesbian she would be a fave as well.

Jamie is very qualified. If he gets it and is not up to snuff...... one of the super hero straight studs can run against him.

Queer as can be and go Jamie, in solidarity.

Pedersen's played nothing but the gay card. His deck's got 52 gay cards. One trick pony. No.

Where have you people been? Jamie hasn't consistently played the "gay card" at all. The street fair debacle was way overblown and misinterpreted. Interestingly enough, civil rights is listed LAST in his lineup of 3 or 4 issue priorities. Ed Murray went in playing the gay card, but spent a majority of his time on transportation. Pedersen will do the same - for health care and education.

Oh, and Sanders: It was the P-I who played the gay card. The Pedersen camp was not so impressed, knowing that Jamie is asking for the vote for many other, important reasons.

I have an inkling that Pedersen will win the primary because he's sitting on a mint much moreso than his orientation.

>sitting on a mint

Is that comfortable?

I'm not voting for Jamie Pedersen, gay, straight or otherwise identified. Being gay is a potential plus, but not when the candidate is as milquetoast as Jamie.

I remember Cal Anderson. I worked on a couple of his campaigns. Cal was the man. He spoke well and fought hard for the gays, the elderly, the dispossessed. He was awesome. Ed Murray impressed me slightly less, but he was still a strong Representative.

Jamie does not impress me. Not in print, not on TV, not on stage. Not as an openly gay man. However, several of the qualities which most impressed me about Cal - his youth, his energy, his commitment - impress me about Stephanie Pure. I have no problem, as a gay man, voting for Stephanie over Jamie.

And I have to get this off my chest. If we're going to be so petty as to vote for a gay because he's a gay, then we need to talk about his gayness. Specifically, his fashion sense. Which in the case of Jamie. Is. Appalling.

What gay man - outside of a Best Buy employee - wears a blue button-down shirt and PLEATED KHAKIS in public, much less at a public candidates forum? Jamie's an athletic guy, but pleated trousers make his midsection look more Star Reynolds than Star Representative. And the hair? It's not helping.

Hey, Will, forgive my lunkheadedness, but can you explain the PCO vote and how it could affect the dealing and using going on in The Quinault at 524 Boylston Ave E? I'm getting so frustrated with this crap.

Will,

People should not vote for Jamie just because he's gay. Let's recall, the P I played the gay card, not Jamie.
People should vote for him because he will be a hardworking and determined representative who will actively work to secure equality for gays and lesbians in this state and not just simply support us, in addition to his other legislative priorities, of course.
He will also be able to counter Anti-Gay Hate Machine, Inc. when they roll into town and start saying that we're all 'criminals and child molesters who die early' like they did when DOMA passed in the first place. Our presence challenges those crazy liars and makes us part of the debate and then it's not just straight people talking about us.
Now, on to the pants: I have a very similar body type to Jamie and flat front pants make my waist look 5 miles wide instead of 32 in, so pleated pants are the only other option, sad but true. Jamie is cute as a button, don't you say any different.

There are enough gays in state government?? Would you ever say there are enough women or people of color just because there are like 4? Grow up folks. This is a chance to add an openly gay person to a visible leadership position, and those chances don't come along very often. Don't screw it up just because the guy wears pleated pants and has an education.

There are enough gays in state government?? Would you ever say there are enough women or people of color just because there are like 4? Grow up folks. This is a chance to add an openly gay person to a visible leadership position, and those chances don't come along very often. Don't screw it up just because the guy wears pleated pants and has an education.

I think that he looked just fine. I don't believe in "gay fashion". I am a gay man and don't dress in stuff that most gay men wear because I don't want to look like a freaking 5 foot tall poodle. I even wear sports jerseys. Why? because I play sports and I can. gay fashion is great for those guys who just sit around looking pretty and don't do much else but for those of us that actually do stuff, wearing a fluffy turtleneck sweater with a delightful pair of pants just doesn't cut it

<a href=http://erosive-esophagitis.net>erosive esophagitis</a> all about

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).