The Los Angeles-based Stonewall Democratic Club meeting Monday night was supposed to run smoothly, with the club’s endorsement roster expected to safely pass on a consent vote. But the unexpected happened when someone pulled incumbent Assemblymember Mike Davis’ name, which, by club rules, meant three people could speak for and three people could speak against his endorsement. One straight Davis supporter argued for the Assemblymember’s endorsement because, she said emphatically, “He’s gay!”
Stonewall President John Cleary explained that “generally good” Democratic incumbents running unopposed for reelection – like Davis (AD48) – don’t require a candidate interview since their first questionnaire is on file. With Davis, however, there were “lingering concerns” over his voting record, Cleary said.
According to Equality California Executive Director Geoff Kors, Davis was present in 2007 when the marriage equality bill came up for a vote – but he abstained, which Kors said EQCA counts as a “No” vote since his vote was needed. He voted in favor of the Harvey Milk Day bill in 2008 but was absent for the votes on both the out-of-state marriage bill and the Harvey Milk Day bill in 2009. Kors said EQCA does not endorse any candidate who does not support marriage equality and to his knowledge, Davis has never said he supports marriage rights for same sex couples. He also said Davis did not return EQCA’s first candidate questionnaire and still has not yet returned the questionnaire sent to him this year.
Cleary said Stonewall’s criteria for endorsement is based on the elected official’s record in comparison with their colleagues and any progress they’ve made. Cleary said that the during the Prop 8 battle, Davis came to the Stonewall headquarters and said he opposed Prop 8 because he thought the California Supreme Court was the law of the land and their ruling on marriage equality should not be overturned by the electorate.
A side note here – Davis’ position on Prop 8 was also the position the NAACP and other minority groups argued in the case to invalidate Prop 8 after it passed. This is from the Equal Justice Society: “Direct democracy cannot override the California Constitution, which requires more than a majority vote to deprive a minority group of their fundamental rights,” said John A. Payton, President and Director-Counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. Longtime marriage equality supporter Alice A. Huffman, president of the California State NAACP, also said: “We cannot become a society that picks and chooses who is entitled to equal rights. We should include all people from all walks of life in the entitlement to all freedoms now enjoyed by the majority of our population As a civil rights advocate, we will continue the fight of eliminating roadblocks to freedom.”
In Davis’ case, it was essentially his non-support for marriage equality that caused a problem since it has been an “open secret” for years that Davis is gay, according to five independent political sources with whom I’ve spoken.
“Much like [state] Sen. [Roy] Ashburn, who was outed not long ago, there have long been similar rumors about Mike Davis,” said one source. “But yeah, he’s gay.”
Said another who had also heard the rumors from “many” people: “Unless someone says they’re gay or I’ve slept with them or have seen the video – neither of which I look forward to – I don’t assume anything is true.”
Jimmie Woods Gray, UTLA and former chair of the L.A. County Democratic Party, far right – pictured here with Hans Johnson, president of Progressive Victory; Mike Gatto, Democratic Party-endorsed candidate for California's 43rd Assembly seat; Luis Lopez, president of HONOR PAC. Photo courtesy Ron Buckmire
But the issue was addressed directly by longtime politico Jimmie Woods Gray, a straight African American ally there to speak on behalf of Davis’ endorsement. According to Cleary, when the Davis endorsement was up for debate, Gray came up to the microphone and said in a positive but exasperated tone:
“He’s gay! He’s a member of the community. We should support him.”
According to Cleary, much of the room fell silent, knowing that the “open secret” many of them had kept for years had just been revealed. Longtime Stonewall politico Garry Shay called for the endorsement to be tabled until April 26 so the club could conduct a formal endorsement interview with Davis.
Not knowing Gray, I called Eric Bauman, the onetime President of Stonewall who was not at the endorsement meeting. Bauman is the chair of the Los Angeles County Democratic Party and vice-chair of the California Democratic Party. Since Gray is a former chair of the LA County Party, and currently with the United Teachers of Los Angeles (UTLA) political action committee, I thought Bauman could shed some light on the straight African American woman who essentially outed Davis.
Bauman said:
“Jimmy Woods Gray is one of my predecessors as chair of the LACDP. I worked closely with her for many years and I consider her to be a friend and colleague and somebody in whom I have trust and upon whom I have often relied.
I look forward to the day and age when absolutely no one needs to concern themselves with negative repercussions for being openly gay, when all of us are embraced solely for who we are and the talents we bring to the table.”
I called Davis’ District office to get a response to the way Gray sought Stonewall’s endorsement. I spoke with his communications person, Steven K. Miller Jr., who was totally taken by surprise after I told him what happened. He demurred, telling me that he couldn’t talk about campaign issues and to call Davis’ Sacramento office. I said, well, take it out of the campaign setting – is Mike Davis gay? Miler said:
“I don’t know. No, not that I know of. No, not at all. This is a very professional office and that is not something that would have come up. So I have never had any reason to think anything like that. I have no reaction – but it is surprising. But that’s a personal and private issue and to broadcast that in a public arena – I’m a little disappointed in Jimmie Woods Gray. It’s like John Perez [the openly gay Speaker of the Assembly]. That’s his personal opinion [ie to be openly gay]. This is something personal – for him for him to come out or not to – and it isn’t anyone else’s business.”
I explained to Miller that Gray did not intend the outing as a bad thing – in fact, she meant it in a very positive way. I also explained that as long as LGBT people are officially second class citizens, sexual orientation is more than simply a “personal, private” matter. Davis’ Sacramento office has not returned my call and I cannot find a website or contact information for his reelection campaign.
Ron Buckmire, an academic, a blogger and head of the Jordan/Rustin Coalition, was at the Stonewall meeting. He told me:
“As an out Black gay man, I was quite surprised to hear Jimmie Woods Gray say that Assemblymember Mike Davis is gay. As President of the county’s premiere Black LGBT political organization, we would be very encouraged to know that we have a member of our community in the state legislature.”
We’ll see what happens next. But I hope Davis – gay or straight – takes the outing by Gray in the positive spirit in which it was intended.
UPDATE: JOHN CLEARY SENT IN THIS ADDITIONAL COMMENT, WHICH REFLECTS MY THINKING, AS WELL:
“Look, it’s important for us to recognize how we are even having this discussion. In a debate about whether to endorse Mike Davis for Assembly, a prominent leader in the African American community and straight ally rose and said this in support of Mike Davis. She clearly thought that this is something to be celebrated and honored. That’s actually remarkable, because for an outing to be intended so positively, that means our society has come a long way.
We all know coming out is among the most intensely personal experiences, both challenging and rewarding, that anyone can ever experience in life. If Mike Davis is gay and wants to acknowledge it, the LGBT and African American communities would do well to be unconditionally supportive and to give Mike the space to take it from here.”
PR Maven and blogger Jasmyne Cannick also chimed in, first on Twitter: “Assemblymember mike davis out of the closet…its about time!” And then on her blog:
“First things first, it was no secret that California 48th District Assemblymember Mike Davis is gay. As much as I like him, I’m just stating the obvious. So this shock and awe to him being “outed” Monday night at the L.A. Stonewall Democratic Club meeting by Jimmie Woods Gray, UTLA and former chair of the L.A. County Democratic Party—is bullshit—unless you never met the man have no idea about what’s going on in Black Los Angeles politics.”
[cut]
I, like a lot of other people could care less if Assemblymember Davis is gay. I mean really, what does his sexual orientation have to do with the California’s budget, education, and prison issues? What does it have to do with the 48th District? Nothing, and that’s precisely what matters in all of this. Gay, heterosexual, or celibate, all I care is that you represent your district and the people of California righteously on those issues that affect us all.”
{ 4 comments… read them below or add one }
Jasmyne Cannick is a hateful bigot who is a destructive force in the LGBT civil rights movement. Any outlet that gives even a pixel of space to her unhinged rantings should reconsider the source. Her opinion is as worthless as her contribution to our community.
I often disagree with Jasmyne – but I disagree that she is a “hateful bigot” or that her opinion is “worthless” – which is precisely why I included it here. In fact, Jasmyne has a following in the African American community with whom she shares many issues and opinions – that marriage equality is not a “top priority,” for instance, when African American lives are so deeply impacted by institutionalized racism and the terrible economy.
I try not to discount WHAT is being said because it is sometimes difficult to hear HOW it is being said.
Here Jasmyne confirms that Mike Davis is gay and, like Eric Bauman, says that should play no part in how he is viewed as a legislator. I find it refreshing that there is a place for common ground in this point of view.
What doesn’t seem to come up in the excitement of the outing, is if Mike Davis DOES NOT represent the gay community — by not supporting out issues and speaking out against discrimination — than should Stonewall endorse him for no other reason than his closeted homosexuality?
“Part of the community?” You can’t be part of the community living on the down low and working against us.
Jasmyne Cannick says our rights are of a low priority in her view. Well her views should be a very low priority when discussing our rights.
Ms. Cannick loses all credibility if she actually thinks that a prominent Black politician’s being gay is of no consequence–whether it be to inspire and encourage others like Ron Buckmire, or to open the eyes of the many African Americans who would like to pretend that gays and lesbians don’t exist in their community, or that we are not deserving of the same civil rights that they already enjoy.
I don’t know why you would include the rantings of Ms. Cannick on any subject, but she lacks authority on gay issues. She has proved herself to be an embarrassment time and again. She puts the Black community ahead of the GLBT community, (actually pits them against each other, which is ever so helpful) mysteriously neglecting to take into account that there are so many members of both. And that any advances in GLBT rights will have major positive impact in the AA community.
She tried to make the case that the people fighting for marriage equality were basically privileged white males only looking out for themselves and was of little concern to the African American community because of the reasons you cited in the previous post: institutionalized racism and the terrible economy. She seems ignorant of the fact that Black LGBT folks are doubly impacted because of the additional hurdles of institutionalized homophobia and economic hardships that burden anyone in the GLBT community. If economic issues are truly of great concern to her, one would think that she would be supportive of marriage equality when any person in a same-sex relationship–of any race–would see vital economic advantages; like Social Security benefits, health insurance for our spouses without the “gay tax” that we pay now, or being able to stay in your home when your partner dies.
She gets it wrong again when she says that Mr. Davis’ sexual orientation has nothing to do with the issues he is voting on– or the 48th district. Would she make the same claim about his race? I would think the people in the 48th District would like to know what color he is and would expect his life experiences as an African American would inform his decision making on issues like education and prisons. If she can’t see that his life experiences as a gay man might also affect his decisions and is most definitely of interest to the 48th District and beyond (at the very least to the LGBT citizens of the 48th District…and beyond)–then she doesn’t have enough of the LGBT POV in her POV to be relevant.