Editorial: LGBTQ+ community still has to fight for Pride

By The Herald Editorial Board

If you’re wondering why Pride Month — a recognition and celebration of the LGBTQ+ community and its members — is so named, it’s a matter of necessity to stress that message of pride in the face of pockets of resistance to that acceptance that remain present in Snohomish County and throughout the state and nation.

For much of the county, the month of June, now drawing to a close, has been marked with official proclamations and celebrations, all occurring without reported problems. Resolutions were signed by local officials, including by County Executive Dave Somers as well as city councils and mayors in Snohomish, Lynnwood, Edmonds, Mill Creek, Mukilteo and Mountlake Terrace. Public celebrations, including parades, picnics, dances, festivals, block parties, brunches — yes, many with participants in drag — were held in Everett, Edmonds, Lynnwood, Shoreline, Woodinville, Monroe, Bothell, Lake Stevens and Snohomish.

Yet, some scattered rain of disapproval threatens a more unanimous public acceptance of the LGBTQ+ community in the county.

Lake Stevens Mayor Brett Gailey balked at signing a proclamation recognizing Pride Month in his city, The Herald’s Sydney Jackson reported Monday. And a Pride group in Arlington has had its event pushed back to July 22 because of prolonged wrangling with city officials and opposition from members of online groups, including Moms For Liberty and Conservative Ladies of Washington.

Gailey’s reluctance to sign a resolution this year is puzzling because he signed the city’s first such proclamation in 2021 and proposed a community advisory committee to promote inclusion that year.

Citing only “personal beliefs” this year, Gailey has made no public explanation for his reversal and did not respond to multiple requests by The Herald for comment on the matter.

As well, when Lake Stevens City Council Member Anji Jorstad, who drafted the city’s first proclamation in 2021, sought support from the rest of the council to discuss a resolution for Pride month this year, her motion received a second form fellow Council Member Mary Dickinson, but was voted down by the council’s other five members.

North of Lake Stevens, Arlington Pride has sought to stage a follow-up to its first Pride celebration in 2022 at Legion Memorial Park, which was attended by about 300 people as well as a handful of black-clad and masked protesters holding signs that warned “Drag queens are groomers.” (Aside from those employed in the pet care industry, the allegation against drag performers is baseless.)

This year’s event was initially stymied by an early request for background checks of performers in drag and that the organization pay a $3,500 fee to cover security for the event. More recently, the fee request has been dropped and Arlington Pride has said it will provide its own security, but it asked the city to enforce a new state law that authorizes local government to restrict the open-carry of firearms at public gatherings.

City Administrator Paul Ellis, in a response to the group, declined the request, determining that the Pride event did not fit the law’s definition of “a demonstration, march, rally, vigil, sit-in, protest, picketing, or similar public assembly.”

Ellis instead implied that responsibility for public opposition to the Pride event was on the organization itself: “While the City has concluded your entertainment, based on the limited information you have provided, is protected by the First Amendment, it is clearly entertainment that certain segments of the community do not support … you should consider how your message is being received by the community.”

Two points: Ellis’ definition of “public assembly” is so narrow it could be used to deny the state law’s intended protection for any such gathering. Ellis’ reference to the group’s exercise of its First Amendment rights, itself, argues for it meeting the legislation’s definition. And nothing in a public celebration of Pride — certainly not evidenced by last year’s peaceful event — would come close to justifying the need for anyone to openly carry firearms in the event’s vicinity.

The planned event is one that state legislators would have envisioned the new law would protect.

The continued opposition to Pride — whether it’s reluctance to express simple support for the rights of the LGBTQ+ community or blatantly hostile intimidation and threats — is ample proof of why Pride events are necessary in our communities. The message of such events is a declaration that members of the LGBTQ+ community have legal and recognized rights to live their lives openly and without fear of retribution or attack.

Those who don’t respect those rights don’t have to participate in Pride events, but neither should they be allowed to interfere in the rights of the rest of the community — members and supporters — to honor, celebrate and demonstrate the meaning of Pride.