Slog
News & ArtsFriday, January 20, 2012
Homo How Should the Two Anti-Gay Dem Senators Be Punished?
Posted by Dominic Holden on Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 2:11 PM
Scanning through the latest vote tally for same-sex marriage in the state senate, where we're only one vote shy of passing marriage equality, I noticed last night, once again, the two Democrats who plan to vote against gay rights: Jim Hargrove (D-24) and Tim Sheldon (D-35). I was planning to write something about how progressives ought to respond, but it looks like gold-star commenter rob! beat me to it. So take it away, rob!:
Even though they've apparently sworn to vote NO on marriage equality and are beyond being swayed, how about letters to the two anti-marriage, reactionary Democrats (Tim Sheldon of Kitsap County and James Hargrove of the Olympic Peninsula) politely expressing disappointment and a deep sense of betrayal? Even—and perhaps especially—if the measure squeaks by, just to remind them they were on the wrong side of progress in civil rights.
The thing is, no one is surprised that these guys are on the side of restricting gay rights. Even though they've got those "D"s after their names, they've always been anti-gay. Both Hargrove and Sheldon voted against all three domestic partnership bills and against a bill to expand the definition of parenthood to include domestic partners.
Admittedly, I've said before that the Democratic Party should be a big enough tent to include lawmakers who don't support gay marriage—there are plenty of other issues where their votes are crucial. But with Hargrove, he's not just anti-gay; to name a few positions, he's voted against against a bill to stop mining on Maury Island, against medical marijuana patients, against beer and wine tasting in grocery stores, and against sexual health education. (Sheldon's record is nearly identical.) Hargrove's also been caught ballyhooing about bi-partisan budgets, perpetuating the systemic revenue shortfalls that play into the state GOP agenda to starve education and slash the social safety net. So there may be a big tent for Democrats, but are "Democrats" like Hargrove and Sheldon even in it? And now that it's 2012, supporting marriage equality—a basic civil right—should probably be the new cost of admission.
So what should the penalty be?
Folks should be respectful if they contact Hargrove's office or Sheldon's office, but if we're gonna run around praising the moderates and praising the Republicans who come out for gay rights, there ought to be some political price for the Democrats who come out against them.
1
Sheldon and Hargrove are schmucks, that much is true. While they may vote the right way for Majority Leader and the rest of leadership, they have really done nothing to prove themselves Democrats. I recall one even going so far as to run for a local level position as a Republican (or threatening to).
This again goes straight to the problem with the Top Two primary, though. Anyone can say they're from any Party, and the actual Party can do little to stop it. There is a bunch that could be said on why the Party should be able to with the current system, but that is a different conversation.
If we had caucuses to choose candidates to represent our parties for elective office, or closed primaries, then maybe Democrats could do something. But instead we are left with the stupid top-two system, which makes for more elections than should be necessary, all so people can feel like they're really having a voice in the elective democratic process...because November, apparently, isn't enough for partisan races.
This again goes straight to the problem with the Top Two primary, though. Anyone can say they're from any Party, and the actual Party can do little to stop it. There is a bunch that could be said on why the Party should be able to with the current system, but that is a different conversation.
If we had caucuses to choose candidates to represent our parties for elective office, or closed primaries, then maybe Democrats could do something. But instead we are left with the stupid top-two system, which makes for more elections than should be necessary, all so people can feel like they're really having a voice in the elective democratic process...because November, apparently, isn't enough for partisan races.
2
The price is simple: they get destroyed in primaries, surely?
* Map of the 24th.
* Map of the 35th.
How reliably blue are these areas? Or will they try to play off some purple cover with this?
* Map of the 24th.
* Map of the 35th.
How reliably blue are these areas? Or will they try to play off some purple cover with this?
3
Punishment? After what Senator Murray said, in the spirit of MLK and all? No no punishment, but a warm embrace and the knowledge that they just have a difference of opinion and a "struggle".
Don't waste time on THEM, call the Democratic Party of Washington and have the party elite talk with the Senators.
Don't waste time on THEM, call the Democratic Party of Washington and have the party elite talk with the Senators.
4
Marriage equality is already in the D's state party platform, though in general parties tolerate candidates who deviate from the platform on issues that would cost them their seats in their own districts.
Most votes on substantial matters split along party lines, so deviation from the party platform starts to matter after a certain tipping point. Deviation from one plank won't be punished. Deviation from multiple planks creates the "DINO" effect, which sometimes comes with pressure either to conform more closely to the party planks, or face a challenger if an electable one exists and can get the funding and endorsements to run.
Other than the disapproval of voters outside their legislative districts, what punishment can anyone inflict on these guys? Their constituents and their funders are the only ones who can do much of anything that matters.
Most votes on substantial matters split along party lines, so deviation from the party platform starts to matter after a certain tipping point. Deviation from one plank won't be punished. Deviation from multiple planks creates the "DINO" effect, which sometimes comes with pressure either to conform more closely to the party planks, or face a challenger if an electable one exists and can get the funding and endorsements to run.
Other than the disapproval of voters outside their legislative districts, what punishment can anyone inflict on these guys? Their constituents and their funders are the only ones who can do much of anything that matters.
5
I'm in Tim Sheldon's district. The guy has so many connections with the good old boys he will be harder to remove than a santorum stain. Plus rhe area is so economically depressed and apathetic that it will be impossible to rally against him.
7
I'm all for the bill, but "punishment" is the wrong language to be using here. In time they will realize they were wrong and will (hopefully) feel shame that they were part of the machine denying good people the right to marry and raise families.
Preach the message with love, not with threats. Support the Ds and Rs with emails, calls, and political donations that favor changing the law. They are going to need it.
Preach the message with love, not with threats. Support the Ds and Rs with emails, calls, and political donations that favor changing the law. They are going to need it.
8
Make sure their opposition to gays is known to history. It should be explicitly stated in their Wikipedia entries and other documents about their lives. Anyone who outlives them has a responsibility to ensure that the future knows of their bigotry.
Remember how King County was renamed for Martin Luther King instead of its original namesake, a vice president who was a slave owner? Someday, anything named for Sheldon or Hargove will be renamed because their names will reminders of a shameful past.
Remember how King County was renamed for Martin Luther King instead of its original namesake, a vice president who was a slave owner? Someday, anything named for Sheldon or Hargove will be renamed because their names will reminders of a shameful past.
9
Republicans might as well hold those seats. Defeat them in the primaries or give money to their opponents.
11
I want to highlight that there is at least one LGBT issue where Senator Hargrove's and Sheldon's voting record differs --- hate crimes legislation. In 2009, the legislature expanded hate crimes laws to include the trans community. Senator Hargrove voted against the bill and was the only D in the entire legislature to vote against the bill. But Senator Sheldon voted for the bill. It was SB 5952 in 2009.
12
@3) It can be a loving punishment--tough love and all that--but a political payback nonetheless. Even MLK, who Murray was embracing in his post, didn't hesitate to call racists "racists" and and charge a political price from those who crusaded against civil rights.
13
By the way, Seattleblues, should you show up here, you have a question which remains unanswered as of this moment.
16
Also, I just did some quick research into the original Hate Crimes law passed in 1993. It was H1569. Sheldon was in the House at that point and voted FOR hate crime laws that included sexual orientation. Hargrove was already int he senate and voted AGAINST the initial hate crimes legislation, too. But my point is, again, that although not the best allay of the LGBT community by any means, there is some minimal LGBT support in Sheldon's voting record. There is none in Hargrove's.
17
WA State Democrats 2010 Platform, Plank 3, Lines 32-34: "[We call for] Ending legalized discrimination against Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual and Transgendered (LGBT) people and seeking repeal of 'Don’t Ask Don’t Tell' and the federal and state 'Defense of Marriage' acts."
18
I almost challenged Hargrove in the dem primary back in 2008 (I'm a Port Townsend native). He's pretty roundly disliked for his social policies in Port Townsend, but the rest of the 24th is much (much, much, much, much) more conservative. If he were taken out in the primary, the Dem would probably lose in the general to an even worse reactionary monster.
19
@18 I disagree. I am a Sequim native and both Van De Wege and Tharinger were able to get elected in the 24th as non-reactionary quality democrats
20
If roles were reversed, and it were a few Republicans refusing to toe the line on a close and important "social values" issue vote, Republican organizations would be committing huge war chests to replacing them with "true conservatives" in the next election. If gay rights were "really" important to the Democrats, Democrats would be doing the same... Instead?... (((Crickets chirping))).
Just so long as they make just enough noise to keep gay $'s rolling in, they figure they are doing enough.
Why the hell isn't HRC (or some other "gay rights" org) committing $1,000,000+ to replacing these guys in the next election if they don't toe the line? (Do you think they might be afraid of becoming irrelevant through success and seeing their gay$s dry up???)
Just so long as they make just enough noise to keep gay $'s rolling in, they figure they are doing enough.
Why the hell isn't HRC (or some other "gay rights" org) committing $1,000,000+ to replacing these guys in the next election if they don't toe the line? (Do you think they might be afraid of becoming irrelevant through success and seeing their gay$s dry up???)
21
That gravel mine on Maury Island wouldn't have been that bad for the environment. A bunch of urban environmentalists didn't like the IDEA of mining in King County. The supposed environmental consequences were overblown. If something is going to fuck up Puget Sound, I'll scream bloody murder about it, but I was never convinced that that mine was going to be that bad.
23
I live in the 19th district, but barely. If I lived on the other side of highway 12, I would be in the 24th. Less than 2-miles to the east is the 35th district. I have emailed Brian Hatfield urging his support, and I agree that Hargrove and Sheldon are not the typical Western Washington Democrats, but they do reflect the sensibilities of the districts they represent. The majority of people on the coast are blue-collar, middle class and low income workers and they are democrats over labor issues and are in the middle of the road on economic issues but they are very conservative on many social/values issues, and gay marriage would be a major example of that. These senators are either voting the way their constituents want, or their conscience or both. They could be primaried, but someone who runs against them on a more liberal platform would likely lose here. They could also lose to a republican, and that would help shift the balance of power in the senate and possibly give it to the republicans. I am very worried that we may lose 1 or both houses and the governor’s race this fall. Even though I disagree with their positions, I understand where they are coming from.
24
Call Sheldon and fill up his poor secretary's voice mail. Maybe the kindly old woman that works for him can talk some sense into him.
25
you have to have our leaders like chopp murray gregoire tell them we will fucking primary you. this is like being for jim crow it's not acceptable. fuck you, we will primary you and we don't fucking care if we motherfucking lose the fight we're going to primary you and keep primarying you and we will bring all the money from puget sound into the race and fucking defeat you. Or if you vote yes, we will blandish you with huge donations.
they don't give a shit if people in puget sound fill up their voice mail boxes. that's lame.
they don't give a shit if people in puget sound fill up their voice mail boxes. that's lame.
26
then you fucking keep the fucking majority by generating overall excitement for equal rights and using that to take some seats from R's in puget sound.
27
@1, bullshit. Just because private political parties can't manage their own business doesn't mean the rest of us have to hold your hand, and worse, pay for it.
It is the party's own fucking fault that they can't get their shit together. Stop blaming others for organizational incompitence.
The top two primary exposes the weakness of the parties own doing.
Identify, promote, and elect the person you want. If you are incapable of doing that then maybe your local criteria is not shared by that of a different locality.
They might just represent the conservative values of the rednecks that put them into office.
If running another dem against these two ends up enabling a Republican to take the seat then I have to wonder what the difference really would be.
It is the party's own fucking fault that they can't get their shit together. Stop blaming others for organizational incompitence.
The top two primary exposes the weakness of the parties own doing.
Identify, promote, and elect the person you want. If you are incapable of doing that then maybe your local criteria is not shared by that of a different locality.
They might just represent the conservative values of the rednecks that put them into office.
If running another dem against these two ends up enabling a Republican to take the seat then I have to wonder what the difference really would be.
28
@27 - I wholeheartedly agree that the State shouldn't pick up the tab for primaries. Let the parties have caucuses to pick their candidates.
If we are going to have partisan elections, then the parties should be able to choose who represents them on the general election ballot. If it is so important to voters that they have a say, then they should be willing to pay for a closed primary.
If it isn't, then get the hell out of the primary business, and let the Parties pick our own damn candidates.
With the system we have now, however, then anyone can claim to be a Democrat or a Republican, and be elected as such, even if, as is the case with these two State Senators, they are completely out of line in the vast majority of areas of the Party platform.
I'm a big tent guy. I don't mind Mark Miloscia, for instance, because while he's wrong on equality and choice, he's right on labor and the environment. But people like Christopher Hurst and these two claim to be Democrats, yet scoff at the Party, and then people blame the Party? Fuck that. If you want a strong Party, then let Parties pick their nominees, and stop this crappy top two system for partisan elections.
If we are going to have partisan elections, then the parties should be able to choose who represents them on the general election ballot. If it is so important to voters that they have a say, then they should be willing to pay for a closed primary.
If it isn't, then get the hell out of the primary business, and let the Parties pick our own damn candidates.
With the system we have now, however, then anyone can claim to be a Democrat or a Republican, and be elected as such, even if, as is the case with these two State Senators, they are completely out of line in the vast majority of areas of the Party platform.
I'm a big tent guy. I don't mind Mark Miloscia, for instance, because while he's wrong on equality and choice, he's right on labor and the environment. But people like Christopher Hurst and these two claim to be Democrats, yet scoff at the Party, and then people blame the Party? Fuck that. If you want a strong Party, then let Parties pick their nominees, and stop this crappy top two system for partisan elections.
29
I've never understood the drive to "punish" closeted gay people. They need acceptance and nurture, not abuse.
30
@19 - Van De Wege has some creds which really endear him to blue-collar dems and moderate republicans. Plus, he's not exactly a hardcore lib. (though I love Kevin and he's been a stellar representative). I'm less familiar with Tharinger because my tenure in Jefferson County and with the legislature has essentially been over since 2008 (moved to Seattle for law school), so I can't speak to him. Still, unseating Hargrove from the left would probably require drawing stark contrast to Hargrove's record, and not just with regard to LGBT issues. In other words, a primary challenger would have to either successfully make LGBT issues the ONLY issue, or run far to the left and appeal to the base to make a dent. The result would be a disaster for 24th dems. I'd LOVE to see Hargrove lose his seat, and preferably in the most embarrassing and humbling way possible, but after chatting with the establishment in Jefferson and Clallam, I was dissuaded from running because they-despite disliking Hargrove-couldn't imagine how a successful primary campaign against him would be able to turn around into a successful general campaign.
31
@28, absolutely nothing is preventing the private parties from holding and manor of selection process to help them identify the candidate they want to promote, nothing.
You could draw random fucking numbers the goddamn day before the primary and declare that person your party's choice.
If the people want an open primary and are willing to pay for it, and the political parties are too poorly organized and run to identify a person before a known date on the calendar then no amount of government handholding and favoritism can help you.
You could draw random fucking numbers the goddamn day before the primary and declare that person your party's choice.
If the people want an open primary and are willing to pay for it, and the political parties are too poorly organized and run to identify a person before a known date on the calendar then no amount of government handholding and favoritism can help you.
32
OK forgive me if I'm being British here, but isn't a senator's job supposed to be to represent their districts above representing their party? If their districts are undecided and they are undecided then they're doing their job.
33
@32, it's a fair point that a legislator is more accountable to his constituency than to his party affiliation.
There are many issues that reach beyond legislative district considerations, however, and this is certainly one of them.
In this case, a legislator's duty should not be restricted to answering the question of how his constituents would like him to vote, but rather evaluating what is being asked of the state, and who stands to gain or lose from the legislation.
What is being asked of the state? Civil equality for gay and lesbian marriages. Who stands to gain? Gay and lesbian families, and anyone who cares about civil equality for all citizens. Who stands to lose? No one.
The only reasons a senator might vote no on such legislation is because he represents people who are uncomfortable with gay and lesbian families and is afraid to provoke voter wrath, or because he himself is uncomfortable with gay and lesbian families. It's an entirely appropriate occasion to turn to the party planks for guidance, especially if his own moral facilities are lacking.
There are many issues that reach beyond legislative district considerations, however, and this is certainly one of them.
In this case, a legislator's duty should not be restricted to answering the question of how his constituents would like him to vote, but rather evaluating what is being asked of the state, and who stands to gain or lose from the legislation.
What is being asked of the state? Civil equality for gay and lesbian marriages. Who stands to gain? Gay and lesbian families, and anyone who cares about civil equality for all citizens. Who stands to lose? No one.
The only reasons a senator might vote no on such legislation is because he represents people who are uncomfortable with gay and lesbian families and is afraid to provoke voter wrath, or because he himself is uncomfortable with gay and lesbian families. It's an entirely appropriate occasion to turn to the party planks for guidance, especially if his own moral facilities are lacking.
34
@31 - The problem with the open primary is that it allows anyone to claim they're a Democrat or a Republican (or any other Party, for that matter), regardless of whether they really are. Freedom of Association swings both ways - people have the freedom to associate with organizations, but only so long as the organizations agree to associate with those people.
The Top Two primary takes that away.
Hell, name me another place that allows the general population to make decisions for private political parties? Not to mention the fact that the top-two disallows third parties from appearing on the general election ballot.
If the people want to winnow all candidates down, fine - have a primary that's top-two, but let the Parties pick their nominees. Or make everything non-partisan. But allowing anyone to pick the nominees of the Parties is wrong.
The Top Two primary takes that away.
Hell, name me another place that allows the general population to make decisions for private political parties? Not to mention the fact that the top-two disallows third parties from appearing on the general election ballot.
If the people want to winnow all candidates down, fine - have a primary that's top-two, but let the Parties pick their nominees. Or make everything non-partisan. But allowing anyone to pick the nominees of the Parties is wrong.
35
Hargrove is a super-Evangelical Christan. Gay rights are not something he supports, same with gun control and abortion. This is not an excuse, of course, but we will not be getting his vote. There really isn't anything we can do about that.
I don't know much about Sheldon, but what we need to do is focus on the people who are genuinely on the fence. The Republicans who came out in favor have risked their careers in doing so (feel the wrath of NOM!) and we need to recognize that as well.
I don't know much about Sheldon, but what we need to do is focus on the people who are genuinely on the fence. The Republicans who came out in favor have risked their careers in doing so (feel the wrath of NOM!) and we need to recognize that as well.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
The Sunday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (35) RSS