Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Civil Rights topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council proclamation for Pride Month draws both support and opposition during heated public comment
Summary
Shelton's June 2026 Pride Month proclamation was formally adopted and prompted a series of public comments both supporting the proclamation and criticizing council members' social-media posts; commenters described threats received by Pride organizers and urged greater professionalism from elected officials.
The Shelton City Council adopted a proclamation designating June 2026 as LGBTQ+ Pride Month and acknowledged 18 local sponsors and community partners supporting events and safe spaces.
During the public-comment period that followed, speakers on both sides addressed the proclamation. Philip Wilson testified against the proclamation, arguing broader cultural and moral objections. Several residents spoke in favor: Clavia said the proclamation could be life-saving and urged annual renewal; Ari Green read a poem focused on the risks queer youth face and framed the proclamation as important for safety and dignity.
A separate public commenter praised the proclamation but criticized council members' use of social media, citing screenshots of posts by Council member Blush and a temporary Facebook ban for Mayor Sherman. That commenter said the Shelton Pride Committee had received death threats and urged the council to retract incendiary social-media statements and act more professionally to avoid endangering community members.
Council member Harris sponsored the Pride proclamation and read the official text at the meeting, which referenced solidarity with Washington State traditions of equality and named local sponsoring organizations. The council did not rescind the proclamation; it stands as read during the meeting.
The exchange underscored divisions in public sentiment and a tension between supporters who emphasized safety and inclusion and opponents who voiced moral objections. Council members did not take additional policy action on social-media conduct during the session; the public commenter’s request for retractions and formal censure was not recorded as an action in the transcript.
