Questions of Homophobia from Rodney Glassman Raised in The Advocate

by

By Jenn

GlassmanUlich-560x313 
Rodney Glassman and Karen Uhlich on Arizona Illustrated, from the Tucson Citizen. 

Rodney Glassman, who is running for John McCain's Senate seat, made headlines this past weekend. And not in a good way.

It turns out that back in 2007, when Glassman was running for Tucson City Council, he was asked at a fundraiser "What is the toughest thing you will face as a Tucson City Councilmember?"

Jokingly or not, Glassman responded: "The toughest thing for me to do will be to sit next to an openly gay councilmember.”

Wow. Way to embody Democratic values of tolerance and diversity, Rodney.

Glassman was talking about Karen Uhlich, Glassman's fellow colleague on the Tucson City Council, who is openly gay. Uhlich has confirmed that Glassman made the statement, and that she and Glassman have since "had a heart-to-heart". Uhlich is supporting all four Democratic candidates against McCain.

The Arizona Republic writes about how fellow candidates Randy Parraz and John Dougherty have taken up Glassman's 2007 comment in criticizing him. Dougherty, specifically, is calling for Glassman to issue a public statement and apology. "If he said that, I'm appalled. I think it disqualifies him as a legitimate candidate if he's that hostile to other people," Dougherty said.

The hullabaloo has even made national headlines. The story was reported on in The Advocate, the nation's largest LGBTQ publication.

Personally, I'm undecided between Glassman, Parraz, Dougherty and Cathy Eden… but I'm certainly not enthusiastic about supporting any Democrat who could joke about being uncomfortable around openly gay politicians — or any openly gay person, for that matter.

Oh, and one commenter on The Advocate tried to defend Glassman by writing: "What I heard was that Glassman's comment was basically a stupid attempt at humor taken out of context – he was asked something like, who would you least rather sit next to, the first asian city councilmember or the first gay city councilmember?"

Dude. As an Asian American, I need to know – how. does. that. make. Glassman's. comment. better?!?

Discover more from Blog for Arizona

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

23 thoughts on “Questions of Homophobia from Rodney Glassman Raised in The Advocate”

  2. I don’t understand why Mr. Glassman won’t just issue a statement apologizing for his past statements and telling people what he learned from his previous experiences with homophobia. To me, that’s the simplest and most effective way to deal with this issue.

    I’m in no way trying to excuse homophobia, but well-intentioned people make mistakes, so instead of getting caught up in half-hearted explanations of negative behavior, why doesn’t Mr. Glassman simply open up about the self-reflection he endured after his gaffe?

    It’s not interesting to me what gay politicians and/ or political groups support or endorse Mr. Glassman; individuals and groups can make their own choices. My problem with this story is that a useful opportunity for a dedicated public servant to discuss publicly why it’s not right to poke fun at the identities of fellow citizens and public servants is being squandered so that various political factions can score cheap points, before the primary. And that’s just sad: fighting homophobia is more important than the electoral prospects of a bunch of U.S. Senate candidates most of us can’t pick out of a line up.

    So Mr. Glassman, tell us what you’ve learned about homophobia. It would help.

  7. No, I actually just got an account yesterday on Daily Kos under Three Sonorans.

    Earlier you accused someone of calling Heinz a liar. If you doubt whether the homophobic comment was made, are you calling our councilwoman a liar?

    It’s the same reasoning.

    Whether or not someone who makes a homophobic statement is a homophobe… that’s beyond this discussion. But it does speak to the professionalism of a candidate speaking publicly as a candidate.

  8. Let me guess – you’re also Dave in AZ on DailyKos … right?

    Of course I don’t agree with that statement or any homophobic statement, but it’s now in doubt whether or not that statement was ever even made. And saying something stupid doesn’t automatically make someone a bigot, and supporting Glassman at this point doesn’t make anyone a homophobe.

    I made a similar comment earlier but it was deleted. Not sure why.

  9. So then why not just say “MY blog” instead? After all, I doubt everyone knows your not-really-dirty little secret.

    Dude … NO ONE would support that statement. If it was even made, which is now in doubt. You ask that question like you’re wielding a scythe or something.

    You know what? I love you. I genuinely, absolutely love you. You bring such joy into my life, and I want to thank you.

  11. Wow man, you are one smart cookie. It’s not like it was a secret or anything.

    Do you agree with Glassman’s homophobic statement, yes or no?

    It’s that simple, call me what you want but I bet you won’t answer the question.

  12. AH HA HA HA! You did it. I can’t beLIEve you actually did it.

    I really thought better of you than that. Not much, but a bit.

    David, you ARE Three Sonorans. In case you weren’t aware

    So stop spamming about your hatchet jobs.

  13. So the reference that Matt Heinz is making is to yet ANOTHER event where Glassman wanted to make a joke about a Latina and a Lesbian.

    If you notice the Three Sonorans article just reported what happened and didn’t rant about it. Just the facts. It was a short article and to the point.

    Glassman has been asked repeatedly and refuses to answer questions directly related to his comment. All he will say is “I have this endorsement… I have that endorsement…”

    But he said what he said, and you can decide how funny or appropriate that is for yourself.

  15. I’m not so familiar with the local politics, I only moved to Tucson a few months ago. So to my uneducated, blissfully ignorant mind, it seemed a valuable addition to the debate, which has been kinda one-sided. People are digging up quotes from Ulrich but I don’t see people asking Heinz or the Glassman campaign what’s up. I grew up in a family of journalists…objectivity is like crack-rock to me

  16. Fair enough, that Matt might not *actually* be surrogating for the campaign. I agree that they’d rather it all just go away.

    But if so, than the question becomes — why is Matt even weighing in, in the first place? Why is Tindall posting his conversation with Matt around the blogosphere, describing him as “one of our supporters” and attributing to Matt a recounting of the initial event as well as some disparaging speculation about Karin Uhlich?

    If Matt’s not supposed to be speaking for the campaign, than why is Tindall paraphrasing him, like he’s some sort of reliable or relevant source from the campaign on this whole debacle? Further, if that’s the case, why did you post it here?

  17. I doubt anyone involved in this is a surrogate for the campaign. I mean, this perpetuates a stigmatizing story. I’d imagine they would rather the whole thing just go away, rather than actively seeking to make it worse and escalate the situation.

    Silly Tindall.

  18. … also, I’m not entirely sure how it’s hypocritical to question someone who may or may not be falsely accusing another person of lying?

  19. I’m not calling Heinz a liar. I’m questioning the appropriateness of the damage control tactic that I think that is being used here by the Glassman campaign via Matt Heinz. It seems a little — uhm — self-destructive and inflammatory.

    Right now, this is a question of “he said, she said”. I’m inclined to believe Uhlich as a better source than Matt Heinz, since Uhlich was actually involved in the whole thing, while Matt is an outside commenter on the situation. Further, it’s unclear that Heinz attended the fundraiser in question, so his information may also be secondhand.

    Further, Uhlich’s position is that it happened, that the whole thing might be blown a little out of proportion, and that she had a conversation with Rodney in 2007 to address interpersonal issues arising from the incident. Matt’s position is that Karin Uhlich and an unnamed reporter are both liars perpetuating a myth, in part because Karin is a political opportunist.

    Which sounds more reasonable to you?

  21. @John

    No, Karin wasn’t at the fundraiser. However, apparently the comment was sufficiently inflammatory that it warranted a conversation and an apology between Rodney and Karin later, so I’m hard-pressed to believe Matt Heinz that the story was completely made up by a reporter. Was Matt at this event in 2007?

    As for the request for a public apology — I actually agree with John Dougherty. If the statement is true, than it is offensive to ALL members of the LGBTQ community (because it suggests Rodney is uncomfortable with ANY openly gay politician). Rodney owes the entire gay community an apology if he actually made the remark, in jest or not.

    As for Matt’s spectulation that Karin Uhlich is trying to destroy Glassman’s political career via the press, that seems rather irresponsible for Matt to insinuate. Matt is basically calling Karin Uhlich a liar, and accusing her of perpetuating a myth solely to further her own political career. What a great way for a Democrat to burn a political bridge with another Democrat.

    Personally, I’m thinking that what’s actually going on is that the Glassman campaign is trying to send surrogates out to play damage control — by scape-goating Karin. Which is an awesome way to blame the victim.

  22. I wasn’t quite right there – here’s another comment from the Advocate:

    Name: Robert Tindall
    Date posted: 8/9/2010 5:06:42 PM
    Hometown: Phoenix

    Comment:
    This is from an email sent to me directly: I got a call from Matt Heinz, one of our supporters. (He’s my gay doctor friend who’s the LD 29 rep in the state house.) He called me re the stuff going on re Glassman. Matt said that what Glassman actually said at that meeting was that he was honored to seated between the first Latino woman elected to the Tucson City Council and the first openly gay woman elected to the Tucson City Council. Uhlich, as it turns out, wasn’t even there that night, and the reporter completely made up the story and the alleged remark. Uhlich thinks that if Glassman doesn’t get elected to the Senate that he’ll run for mayor of Tucson, and she wants to do so also, so she has let this bs go on rather than just state the facts.

  23. The Advocate commenter didn’t explain very well … someone asked the question trying to be funny…and since Glassman happened to be SITTING NEXT TO Ulrich, the first gay City Councilmember, he tried and failed to make a joke…

    …and Dougherty’s demand for an apology is ridiculous, because Glassman already apologized to Ulrich, YEARS ago, and she accepted.

    Glassman still has the endorsements of loads of LGBT groups, so I think that says something.

    Let this mark the first time ever that a politician has said something dumb…

Comments are closed.