Blogcabin California

We got a few minutes to talk with Peter Hankwitz, a gay Republican who is running for the U.S. Congress in California’s 27th District–in the heart of the San Fernando Valley. Here’s what he had to say.

BlogCabin: So why are you running for Congress?

Peter Hankwitz: We need representation for a change…

I’ve been working in the entertainment industry for almost two decades as a manager, marketer, producer and representative. I’ve served as a volunteer for community groups and other organizations over the years. I have traveled throughout America, and visited several foreign nations. And I have experienced humanity at virtually every level between deep despair and great joy, that of others and my own. Life happens to all of us.

We need experienced leadership here in this District. I am open to the hearts and minds of those around me. I will listen and relate to their needs and concerns, and then work hard to help make a difference in their lives. I know I am up to that challenge.

I care deeply for my family, my friends, and my neighbors: all of them. We cannot place a label on a group of people — Republican, Democrat, white, black, Asian, accountant, Latino, male, lawyer, female, Christian, doctor, Muslim, peace officer — and then suddenly expect that they’ll all think and behave the same way. That’s insane thinking! Yet, I hear people say time and time again that they are afraid of Republicans, and concerned that I am a member of that Party. Well, nobody is right 100% of the time!

We’ve got to reopen a dialogue among Americans, among humans, and not mute the discussion before it begins, just because we might have differing ideas on how to govern. Being a member of Congress isn’t just a “job”. I don’t want to go to Washington to get a job. I want to go to Washington to get the job done on behalf of over 600,000 of my neighbors; to be an effective voice for those of us in the mainstream majority not currently being heard due to the partisan rancoremanating from the Far Left and the Extreme Right. I listen to all sides of an issue with an open mind, a practice some representatives don’t do very often.

It’s time we had representation for a change.

BlogCabin: Who’s your competition?

PH: My competition is actually those voters who are thrilled with Brad Sherman’s level of representation, and we haven’t found too many of those out there in any political party. This is an race about Congressional representation vs. none. It’s not an issue of competition, per se.

BlogCabin: With the districts which we got after the gerrymander in 2001, doesn’t that make the race difficult?

PH: Any race is difficult. What proves to be less difficult for me is connecting with voters in our District on a personal level: Democrats, Republicans, everyone.

When I speak with people, they tend to recognize, as I have, that most of us are hoping for many of the same things: limiting government’s reach into our lives; permanently lowering taxes; respecting individual rights and responsibilities; removing unnecessary federal regulations and barriers to business, growth and opportunity; working to solve problems of crime and illegal immigration. These are all issues non-specific to one particular group or political party. These are issues all of us need to face together.

Democrats want real representation in Congress, someone who will finally listen to them. And I am that someone. Most Democrats in our newly drawn District have only continued to vote for the incumbent because there was no viable alternative presented to them. I am that alternative. I’m about as socially mainstream as it gets in the Republican Party. But, again, this isn’t even an issue of Republican vs. Democrat; it’s an issue of representation vs. no representation.

BlogCabin: Let’s say you get elected, what are your three top priorities in Congress?

PH: I get asked that a lot, and I do intend to be elected, so it’s a great question!

In reality, I have one top priority: to effectively represent the interests of the constituents of California’s 27th Congressional District in a way that will be most beneficial to the most Americans. I don’t think it’s a politician’s job to tell people what their problems are. It’s our job to listen to the people, and act accordingly on their behalf; to make those tough decisions.

The trouble is that some members of Congress tend to get mired in broad social issues, rather than identify and address those specific items that will make life better, easier, and more prosperous for the very people they represent.

We have a lot of family business owners here in the San Fernando Valley who are being choked by federal taxes and regulations. We who live in states that share a border with another country (either Canada or Mexico) need to be mindful of the bigger responsibilities placed on us if we are not aware of those who are crossing those borders illegally, such as a lack of tax revenues to offset the costs of education and healthcare paid by Californians. And we have good kids who are forced to attend schools alongside other kids who have no respect or regard for education, personal property, teachers, or, at times, life itself. But these troublemakers are the exception to the rule.

In many cases it appears we have a hopeless condition, absent of any encouragement from our government. I’ve got to tell you it is not hopeless. We can make a difference! We have to remind parents and community leaders that hope is alive within America’s youth — right
here in our neighborhood! We just have to address a few of these issues at their roots in order to effect the necessary change.

BlogCabin: Have you spoken with Jeff Cook–another Log Cabin member running for Congress in New York?

PH: Not yet, but I’d love to hear from him.

As gay Republicans, I am sure all of us in Log Cabin have been told at one time or another that we’re oxymorons. San Diego’s Gay and Lesbian Times explores the idea:

In 2004, President Bush’s victory is credited to strategically placing the issue of same-sex marriage on several key state ballots (Missouri, New Mexico and Ohio, to name a few), thus drawing out a conservative base. Bush also supports a constitutional amendment defining marriage as solely the union of one man and one woman. In what was a first for the national Log Cabin Republicans, the organization chose to withhold its endorsement of President Bush, the Republican candidate.

Just recently on “Meet the Press” with Tim Russert, the Reverend Jerry Falwell said of Marc Cherry, the creator of “Desperate Housewives” (who self-identifies as a gay Republican), “If he’s gay and Republican, then the first thing he should do is join the Democratic Party.”
And if you think that sounds hostile, wait until you’re sitting at a dinner party surrounded by gay friends and announce that you’re a Republican.

Or, at least, so argues Garrick Wilhelm, president of the San Diego chapter of Log Cabin Republicans and the California State Board technology director.

“When I was coming out, I naïvely thought I would be accepted and feel free to be myself,” says Wilhelm. “But in the gay community, I have to be just as – or more – careful about making the decision to disclose that I am a Republican than I do in the straight community disclosing that I am a gay man. There is a tremendous hostility toward gay Republicans in the gay community.”

This dual rejection encountered – as a homosexual in the Republican Party and as a Republican in the gay community – is what Angela D. Dillard, a professor of history and politics at the Gallatin School at New York University, calls “double marginalization” in her book Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner Now? Multicultural Conservatism in America. Dillard offers, as she says, “a comparative analysis of conservatism which today cuts across the boundaries of sex, race, ethnicity, gender and sexuality.” The purpose of the book, argues Dillard, is to challenge the very notion of the conservative party belonging only to middle- and upper-class heterosexual white men.

Dillard’s book takes a broad look at members of minority groups who associate with conservatives, most notably Clarence Thomas, Alan Keyes, Linda Chavez and Phyllis Schlafly. Dillard allows each of these individuals to tell their own story of how they reconcile their minority status with their conservative politics. For example, she argues that many African-American conservatives have rallied against inner-city poverty. While Dillard is more successful in her argument when it comes to race and gender, there are some interesting anecdotes regarding gay conservatives, including a chapter on “Strange Bedfellows: Gender, Sexuality and ‘Family Values’” in which Dillard explores the double marginalization that many homosexual conservatives feel.

The fact is, according to Jeremy Hawthorn, a local gay Republican, that you can see these scenarios above in just about any minority group of the American population. The notion, says Hawthorn, that Republicans are heterosexual white men in middle- to upper-social class positions is simply outdated.

So how do you feel? Are gay Republicans oxymorons or are those who throw the term around oxymorons, without the “oxy”?

Gay Republicans – an oxymoron? [GLT]

After Baylor University’s Business School dismissed an alumnus simply for being gay, Log Cabin is calling for his reinstatement:

“Baylor University’s Business School is ignoring the policy of the vast majority of Fortune 500 companies who protect gay and lesbian workers,” said Patrick Guerriero, President of Log Cabin Republicans. “The business school’s decision to dismiss an alumnus from the school’s advisory board because he’s gay shows this institution is intolerant and out of touch with 21st century corporate America.”

Tim Smith, a Log Cabin member and alumnus of Baylor University, has served for five years on the advisory board at Baylor’s Hankamer School of Business. Smith, who is also a graduate of the Harvard Business School, has contributed more than $65,000 to Baylor and raised more than $60,000 to establish an academic scholarship endowment at Baylor.

In a statement, Dr. Terry Maness, dean of Baylor’s business school, said he kicked Smith off the advisory board because of his “alternative lifestyle.” The statement went on to say, “We must be sensitive to the position of our affiliated denomination, the Baptist General Convention of Texas, which has, on previous occasions, stated that a homosexual lifestyle is incompatible with most Baptist interpretations of Scripture.”

As an institution which tells young men that they aren’t even allowed to dance with women, is there any surprise that some might prefer their own sex after graduation?!?

Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey sent a letter to Republicans across California, warning them that a vote against Proposition 77–the Governor’s reapportionment reform measure endorsed by Log Cabin–could lead to a Democrat Majority in Congress.

[By]y voting for Proposition 77, you may actually be voting to put Congress back in the hands of liberal Democrats.

In 2001, all 45 Republican state Lawmakers unanimously voted for the district lines that now exist–because they were the best set of lines possible to ensure Republican control of the House of Representatives.

Gay Massacussetts Congressman Barney Frank contributed $1000 to the campaign which funded the mailer. I guess he’s happy with the make-up of the U.S. House of Representatives!

Delay Mentor Subverts Schwarzenegger on Prop 77 [BfT]

Log Cabin California Director Jeff Bissiri writes in this month’s IN Los Angeles Magazine about why gays and lesbiabns should consider voting for reform on Tuesday, November 8.

On November 8, Californians will be asked two simple questions: Are we satisfied with the way our State Government is functioning, and are we willing to take the necessary steps to clean it up? For those who believe we can do better, the ballot includes a series of measures that improve the way our State does business.

Because Governor Schwarzenegger supports them, you might be inclined to vote against the measures as a way of “paying him back” for his veto of the marriage equality bill. While there is justifiable disappointment at the Governor for his veto, his overall record, including a 100% rating by Equality California for his first year in office, places him as one of the most pro-gay governors in America. No matter how you feel about the Governor, your vote on these initiatives should be based on their merits. If you ask yourself how these proposals will affect LGBT Californians you’ll vote yes on Propositions 74, 75, 76 and 77.

Proposition 74 seeks to improve education in California by extending from two to five years the time it takes before a teacher can achieve tenure. Tenure effectively makes it impossible for a teacher to be fired. We’re grateful for the tens of thousands of excellent teachers who are educating our children; however two years just isn’t long enough to determine whether a teacher deserves a job that’s guaranteed for life. This initiative will improve our school system by making sure that only deserving teachers get a lifetime job. If this initiative is approved, it will not affect current law which gives LGBT teachers strong protections against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation regardless of tenure. The LA Times, San Francisco Chronicle, and Orange County Register, all support this measure.

Proposition 75 requires public employee unions to get a member’s consent before taking money from their paychecks for political purposes. Last year, public employee unions contributed to legislators who opposed marriage equality. Without Proposition 75, LGBT public employees will have money taken directly from their paychecks and put into the political coffers of those who could deny them their equal rights. Those who disagree with their unions political decisions shouldn’t have their money taken without approval.

Members of the LGBT community are taxpayers too. Public employee unions, using taxpayer dollars, have pumped so much money into political campaigns that they effectively control both sides of the negotiating table. The other side of that table is not big business but our elected representatives and we the taxpayers. The conflict of interest is clear. The LA Times, Orange County Register, and San Diego Union Tribune support this measure.

Proposition 76 ties State government spending to the revenues Sacramento brings in. In our personal lives we must live within our means or face the consequences. But in Sacramento, the response to this same urge to spend more money than comes in has been to deny the problem exists—and tens of billions of dollars in debt have been racked up as a consequence. The upheaval caused by these annual budget crises has far reaching effects.

Under the current state budget system, any program that is supported by the general fund is vulnerable to spending freezes or cuts, including many programs that benefit the LGBT community. For example, since 2000, our community has fought for full funding of AIDS Drug Assistance Programs. With more predictable spending and revenues for the State, people with HIV/AIDS will not be asked to sacrifice to pay for the legislature’s spendthrift ways. The San Jose Mercury News, Orange County Register, and San Diego Union Tribune, support this measure.

Proposition 77 takes the power to draw legislative boundaries away from the Legislature and puts it in the hands of a panel of retired judges selected by both parties and gives them specific criteria to draw the lines. The current system is rigged to protect incumbents. Since the politicians in Sacramento redrew congressional and state legislative districts before the 2002 elections, not one incumbent has lost. Democracy doesn’t work if incumbents never have to worry about losing. It also creates a system where the sensible center is kept out of public office because our elected representatives are chosen, not in general elections but, in closed partisan primaries.

Opinion surveys show a growing number of registered Republicans in California support marriage equality and a clear majority of GOP voters support domestic partnership rights. These Republicans are not represented in the legislature because gerrymandered districts and closed primaries silence their voices. It’s time to establish clear rules that will be implemented by a fair-minded panel who will consider the best interests of the voters instead of the best interests of the politicians. The LA Times, San Francisco Chronicle, Sacramento Bee and San Jose Mercury News, support this measure.

Together, these four proposals offer us a chance to reform state government. All Californians, but particularly LGBT Californians, should support these common sense reforms.

I couldn’t have said so better myself!

Another Supreme Court nominee, another record to review.

“Log Cabin looks forward to a thorough and thoughtful review of Judge Samuel Alito’s nomination to the United States Supreme Court. As a replacement to Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, the person who fills this vacancy will have a powerful affect on the balance of the Court and on the future of basic fairness for LGBT Americans. Judge Alito has a long track record from his 15 years on the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals. Log Cabin will carefully study this record along with his writings and his testimony during confirmation hearings particularly as they relate to questions of basic fairness for gay and lesbian Americans. It is incumbent upon the Senate Judiciary Committee to insure that this confirmation process is fair and dignified. It is also critical for members of the Senate Judiciary Committee and the entire Senate to diligently question Judge Alito about where he stands on critical issues to LGBT Americans.”

That’s from LCR national President Patrick Guerrero.