We The (Straight) People: Forgetting the Gay Residents of Culver City

Karlo Silbiger

NOTE: This is the fifth in a series of Culver City Progress election articles detailing the role of Councilmembers and the views of the challengers on the important issues in Culver City. View the previous articles here, here, here, and here.

No one believes me when I say that Culver City has as progressive a voting populace on gay rights issues as does Santa Monica or West Hollywood. We don’t get adequate credit for our electorate’s tolerant views on issues of equality and civil rights. In 2008, 67% of Culver City’s voters supported marriage equality by voting against the “h8ful” proposition 8. A year later, those same voters elected the first 2 openly gay elected officials in Culver City history to our school board in myself and my colleague, Kathy Paspalis. While other school districts were dealing with homophobic bullying that led to a rash of suicides, our high school students showed great maturity when they elected a transgendered classmate to be homecoming king in 2010. We live in a wonderfully diverse and supportive community, and we should be proud.

Earlier this month, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a decision by Judge Walker that proposition 8 was unconstitutional since it took away basic rights from a minority group with no legitimate governmental purpose. Member of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) community in Culver City and throughout the state rejoiced as our basic civil rights were protected from the political whims of the voting majority. Our allies were also happy as they realized that this decision not only protected their friends, neighbors, and family members, it also protect their own rights since it sets legal precedent for them to fight back should a majority of the voters someday turn against them.

One of the things that I have quickly learned as an elected official in our community over the past 2+ years is that my job extends far beyond the immediate task of working with my board colleagues to set policy for our district. As an elected leader who swore to “uphold the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California,” I have a solemn obligation to protect the residents of Culver City and especially the students in our school district from illegal and unconstitutional laws that are imposed (or attempted) at all levels of government. When T Mobile attempted to put a cell tower across the street from one of our elementary schools, I convinced my colleagues on the board to unanimously approve of a letter sent to the Mayor and City Council asking for careful consideration of the health and safety of our students. Did the school board have an official say in the ultimate decision on this issue? Of course not. But as leaders within the community we needed to take a stand to support the people who elected us to lead. We could not sit back and be silent observers.

As I read the coverage of this landmark court decision, I was reminded of 3 times within the last 8 years that our City Council members, who swore that same oath mentioned above, were given an opportunity to take a stand in support of the LGBT community in Culver City and in protecting the civil rights of all their constituents. Their record is, unfortunately, mixed in terms of how they reacted in times when leadership was required.

In July of 2004, at my urging, the council considered taking an official position on a simple statement: “the City of Culver City opposes the Federal Marriage Amendment and urges the City’s representatives in Washington D.C. to vote accordingly.” Massachusetts, where I was then living and going to school, had just legalized gay marriage as a civil rights requirement under their state constitution, and as a result, President Bush and his conservative friends in Congress were trying to pass a constitutional amendment to restrict marriage to 1 man and 1 woman throughout the country. I knew that this issue impacted the lives of hundreds of residents in our community, not to mention state and local government rights under the concept of federalism, and I hoped that our council would serve as our collective voice in protecting the rights of our residents. 32 members of the public spoke on this issue, most in support of action. However, while then Council Member Alan Corlin made the motion and Council Member Gary Silbiger seconded that motion, they could not find a third vote. Mayor Steve Rose and Council Members Albert Vera and Carol Gross all had many reasons why the important work of running the local government precluded them from passing a 1 sentence statement to take a stand for civil rights.

Unfortunately, the voters of California did not vote in lockstep with the voters of Culver City. By a margin of 52% to 48%, they removed the right to marry from a minority group, an act that was both inequitable and completely consequential to a segment of our community. Once again, I went to the council asking that we take a stand. A movement was building for then Attorney General Jerry Brown to fight this decision on the grounds that it conflicted with other parts of the state and federal constitutions. I wanted to make sure that our city went on record as supporting our Attorney General in his quest to protect minority rights and the rights of our residents. Again, I asked for a 1 sentence statement in support. However, the new and improved council which supposedly was more open to the public refused to even discuss the issue as had their predecessors. Council members Mehaul O’Leary, Scott Malsin, and Andy Weissman refused to even put it on the agenda. They said this was not a pertinent issue for the council to discuss, a truly sad sign for the gay and lesbian constituents who were seeing their basic rights eliminated.

LGBT rights were raised yet again just days after the 2009 election of Kathy Paspalis and me. In my victory speech on election night, I mentioned the pride that I felt at being part of a community who would elect such a diverse (in every respect of the word) school board. My mention, in the context of a long list, that there would now be 2 members of the LGBT community on the board elicited a response from a resident named Dee Seehusen, then a council appointed member of the Landlord-Tenant Mediation Board, where she castigated Kathy and I for not disclosing our sexual orientation before the election and said that the voters of Culver City might have voted differently had they known. The city council acted swiftly to remove Ms. Seehusen from her appointed position, unanimously arguing that a person who is helping to negotiate between landlords and tenants must not have any perceived bias as it relates to the LGBT community that may come before that body.

As voters head to the polls in just 7 weeks to elect 4 members of our council, I am under no illusion that these votes or this issue will be paramount on anyone’s mind (mine included). We have very serious issues within the confines of our little community. Times are tough and we need council members with the ideas and leadership necessary to address the everyday needs of our city government. However, I hope that we also expect to have a council made up of those who see their role more broadly, who thrive in serving as our collective voice in defense of the civil rights of our populace. That is a quality hard to find, but essential if we really expect them to live by the words in their oath office to defend a Constitution that begins with “We The People.”

LGBT RIGHTS SCORECARD

December 1, 2008 Vote Against Agendizing Support for Jerry Brown's Suit in Opposition to Proposition 8
Mehaul O'Leary: F
Scott Malsin: F
Andrew Weissman: F

December 14, 2009 Vote to Remove Dee Seehusen from the Landlord-Tenant Mediation Board for Discriminatory Comments
Mehaul O'Leary: A
Scott Malsin: A
Andrew Weissman: A

Karlo Silbiger is the Co-Edtor of the Culver City Progress Blog, the President of the Culver City School Board, and the Former President of the Culver City Democratic Club.