In response to “Community Voices: Representation Matters, and We’re Supporting Grace Garner in Palm Springs District 1” (Oct. 10):
I have been actively involved in the LGBTQ community for decades, since the Stonewall era as a New York University student living down the street from the Stonewall Inn in the riot aftermath. Being LGBTQ then was illegal, with individuals subject to arrest, beatings, imprisonment and/or psychiatric incarceration. (Being homosexual was deemed to be a mental illness by the American Psychiatric Association, and grounds for institutionalization.)
Without any rights or agency, LGBTQ people lived in fear. But our nascent community united, organized and fought back, and through much pain and hardship over the years, we have made significant gains by taking to the streets and to the voting booths, fighting in legislative bodies and in the courts, and changing public opinion.
Last month, my husband and I were asked to host the annual LGBTQ+ Equality Caucus dinner at our home. This group is the U.S. congressional caucus for all LGBTQ congresspeople. In the afternoon, my husband and I were honored to privately meet with Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and in the evening, my husband and I had the pleasure of welcoming the caucus, its members and supporters from throughout the nation. Along with others, I introduced the local LGBTQ office holders, and those seeking office, including Scott Nevins. Speakers included Reps. Maxine Waters and Hakeem Jeffries, along with a national list of current LGBTQ congresspeople, including Rep. David Cicilline, who is chair of the caucus, and new LGBTQ candidates running for Congress.
I held back the tears, remembering the helplessness of the Stonewall era, recalling all the hard work we have done since, and now experiencing the empowerment that the LGBTQ Congressional Caucus engenders. Although still seriously underrepresented in our nation’s political institutions, the LGBTQ community finally and proudly has a place at the table. The message of the speakers that evening was clear: Embrace the principle of helping one another as a unified community in the arc of LGBTQ struggle and progress. And now, the winds of repression loom as we face a polarized nation, with our rights and legal protections at serious risk. This is a time for us remain united as an LGBTQ community and insist on our rightful place in the political process, without apology.
The article, unfortunately, does not unite our community. It is divisive and fractionalizes by dismissing a qualified LGBTQ candidate as unworthy of office simply because he is LGBTQ. To quote the article, “LGBTQ people are lacking neither representation nor power in Palm Springs.” It seems that there are those who believe that there are too many LGBTQ office holders and/or too many LGBTQ people seeking office. Let’s be clear: There are never too many LGBTQ officials or candidates. To suggest otherwise is harmful to the LGBTQ community and does not represent a path forward, as it denigrates those LGBTQ people running for office and the LGBTQ base that supports them. To attack a legitimate LGBTQ candidate in our city for being LGBTQ is dangerous. It opens the door to further delegitimize LGBTQ candidates and to further disenfranchise voters.
We certainly need to provide support for other minorities outside and within our community who seek political office as well, mindful that access to the political process is important to many groups of diversity, including intersectionality within the LGBTQ community. We must help others gain a political voice and achieve political success, albeit never by pitting one group against another, both outside and within our LGBTQ community, never by denigrating. That’s not what we do.
In the final analysis, the real issue in this specific local election is not the demographics, but ultimately each candidate’s record and vision, for District 1 and for our city, and each candidate’s ability to act as a unifying force in the district. Has the incumbent, Grace Garner, produced results for District 1? Has she effectuated positive outcomes for her constituents, providing the district with a unified focus? If so, the voters in her district will re-elect her. If not, then the voters have the right to vote against her. Has the challenger, Scott Nevins, brought forth a record of leadership, and does he have specific plans to enhance and act as a unifier in District 1? Has he provided a new roadmap focused on results for his future constituents? If so, then the voters have the right to elect him. If not, then the voters have the right to vote against him.
The issue of demographics ignores the core issue of the election: Who has the ability, passion, energy, desire and ideas to better serve District 1 on the City Council? This defines Scott’s campaign, focusing on the record and the vision to unify the district and produce positive outcomes. Let us all focus on that kind of debate, rather than deny the challenger for being LGBTQ. This is what democracy is supposed to look like: two or more candidates debating the issues, giving the voters information about the candidates’ records and positions, and then having the voters determine whom they select to be the best candidate.
We are a system that should encourage candidates from all communities to run and present their ideas, based on quality debate of those ideas, where informed voters decide which candidate is best to serve. Anything else undermines our communities and elections.
P.S. For clarification, the LGBTQ Victory Fund endorsed Scott Nevins in this race, and Equality California did not endorse any candidate. The article seemed to suggest otherwise.
Rich Weissman is a retired data scientist/researcher with expertise in data modeling and demographic/political analysis. He now devotes his time as director of his charitable fund, supporting organizations and activities that empower minority groups, including LGBTQ people, women, people of color, religious minorities, immigrants and others, to fight against homophobia, transphobia, misogyny, racism and other forms of intolerance. As an additional component, the fund supports animal rights and rescue. Rich also works as a volunteer data scientist at The Center for New Data, an organization fighting voter suppression nationwide. Rich and his husband live in Palm Springs, and are the proud parents of their wonderful children, dog and granddogs.
This beautifully-written piece summarizes my feelings too. Maximizing representation for everyone is what we should aspire to, but it was heartbreaking as a gay man who has been through the same journey Rich has, to see representation be so clumsily weaponized against Scott Nevins, who appears to be an impressive challenger. Thank you Rich for reminding us how far we’ve come as a community and how much we have to protect. Thank you for being a true and fierce LGBTQ leader. And thank you CV independent for allowing the initial opinion to be challenged.
I’ve been involved with several causes and organizations of which Rich and his hound have also been apart. His article describes a pragmatic approach each voter should consider when deciding who gets their vote. It’s absurd to suggest a candidate should be ignored based on one part of their being, LGBTQ in this instance. Conversely, doing that says to me the other candidate is more qualified because they aren’t LGBTQ; ridiculous. I’m in complete agreement with Rich’s view.
I too agree with Rich. I’m am an HIV/AIDS and LGBTQ advocate and activist. Our community had to literally fight for our lives. I’m pleased at how far we have come mostly in Democratic states. Many minorities have and still fight for equality. This country is in a terrible time of division. There are hundreds of anti LGBT bills in this country, most targeted towards the most vulnerable children finding their way in this world. Today, I’m pleased to say that I can actually look past demographics and vote for the candidate I believe will be the most qualified. Gay, straight, or any gender identity. Mr. Weissman is a wise, educated, passionate man who works tirelessly to improve the lives of all people. Thanks for publishing it.
Well put! The two who wrote that opinion piece have managed to reduce the politics of Palm Springs down to something worse than a popularity contest – pitting minorities against one another. And I’m sure these out-of-town authors couldn’t be more proud of themselves. Thank you Rich for speaking out against this insanity.
Thank you! The initial opinion was the view of wealthy white LGBTQ leaders outside Palm Springs trying to speak to gay people in Palm Springs, many of whom are neither wealthy nor white. One was left with the impression that they need to spend more time talking to the “marginalized people” they claim to represent, many of whom are LGBTQ too, and many of whom do not feel marginalized.
Excellent provocative discussion by Rich Weissman. Let’s stop judging those who seek a role in government (or in our judiciary too) by the color of their skin, their gender, their sexual identity. What matters to me is character, integrity, a solid reputation for truthfulness, the ability to communicate orally and in writing, and the willingness to stake out a position on issues relevant to her or his constituency (sounds like Pete Buttigieg, Ritchie Torres, Will Rollins, don’t you think?). Good job Rich.
Oh, and one more fundamental for candidates who get my vote—-it’s so fundamental I forgot to add it earlier. The candidate who demonstrates she or he gathered facts, analyzed them against the needs of those she or he represents, and makes a decision based on such an exercise will get my vote everytime.
Thank you Rich Weismann for writing this thought provoking and necessary response to the opinion piece by Tucci & Burnside. Your article has encouraged many of us to take stock as to where we are, how we have evolved and the presumptions we make. I was so taken aback by the entitled and narrow thought process of two people I have long known and admired who I feel have lost their perspective on where we truly are as a community. Those of us that have been involved in the fight for Civil Rights, Women’s Rights, LGBTQ Rights and felt the pain in each of those battles know that we never truly won any of them. Yes, we made progress in each but we have never eradicated the core beliefs that promote racism, misogyny, and homophobia. In fact, looking at today’s society I believe we have taken steps back in each of those categories. So, to have two LGBTQ individuals state that we should disregard a candidate because that community has enough power, without any regard for qualifications or who would be the best person for the position, cannot be allowed to go unanswered. Their statement is so dangerous for our community and every community that is fighting for equality. It also gives credence to the groups of people that believe that we as minorities are given positions just because of skin color, ethnicity, gender or LGBTQ status and not because of the value we bring to the table. It also did a great disservice to Grace, who should be judged for her record as an incumbent and not be elected just because of her ethnicity and to Scott who has a great deal of talent and is eminently qualified for the position but they believe should not be elected because he is an LGBTQ candidate. Once we go down that rabbit hole and allow one minority to be pitted against another minority we take a huge step back in the battle for equality for all communities.
So, based on qualifications, who is the better candidate? This article and the comments do nothing to help a voter. Palm Springs politics have become about everything except running a city efficiently.
JC – Re your question above, “Who is the better candidate?” I’m supporting Scott Nevins because he is running a campaign based on issues (and not denigrating others) and finding ways to bring people together so as to better run our city in significantly improved ways. Go to his website and you can learn more about his qualifications/background and what he specifically plans to do. You’ll note his tag line is “we are ONE” – an important point of differentiation, because we all want our city to unify behind a common vision. Thanks for this excellent question. His website is: https://www.scottnevins.com/