Truemors
is reporting from
Member
NP Rank:
NP Rank:
Ministers say they will campaign against lesbian candidate
Share:
by smkovalinsky | November 16, 2009 at 07:17 am
181 views | 6 Recommendations | 21 comments
Photos
Ministers say they will campaign against lesbian candidate | Photo 02
uploaded by smkovalinsky
Ministers in Houston, Texas say they are alarmed at gay take-over of City Hall
A woman running for Mayor in a Houston , TX has aroused the ire of a group of Christian ministers there. The Houston Chronicle has reported that Annise Parker's run for mayor will be campaigned against by the ministers because she is openly lesbian.
Parker and former city attorney Gene Locke wound up on top on November 3 and now face a December 12 mayoral run-off. Houston is the fourth largest city in the U. S.; Portland is currently the largest U.S. city to be led by an openly gay mayor, Sam Adams.
The group says they're alarmed by the possibility of a “gay takeover” of City Hall – two openly gay candidates are also vying for seats on the Houston City Council – which could lead to the reversal of a 2001 amendment that prohibits the city from providing benefits to the domestic partners of gay and lesbian employees.“The bottom line is that we didn't pick the battle, she did, when she made her agenda and sexual preference a central part of her campaign,” Dave Welch, executive director of the conservative group Houston Area Pastor Council, told the paper.
“National gay and lesbian activists see this as a historic opportunity. The reality is that's because they're promoting an agenda which we believe to be contrary to the concerns of the community and destructive to the family,” he added.
Writing at gay weekly the Dallas Voice, columnist David Taffet disagreed: “While Parker is clear about who she is (she has a partner of 20 years [Kathy Hubbard] and two children), she does not make an issue of her sexual orientation.”
“What bothers these ministers is that she doesn't lie,” Taffet added. “She doesn't hide. She's open and honest about who she is. Interesting that these qualities bother ministers.”
What is NowPublic?
NowPublic lets people work together to cover news events around the world.
Crowd Power
smkovalinsky
New York, New York, United States
Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (21)
at 07:35 on November 16th, 2009
how sad that these men of faith dont extend the right of democracy, freedom and respect to all
at 07:40 on November 16th, 2009
It is tribal deception. They are fearful that if ever the tribal values are challenged, then the tribe is weakened. It is a primitive mindset. They cannot permit other world pictures to exist as it could challenge their own. This is a secular and religious strategy, though in the US today religion is the bigger sinner in this way
at 07:58 on November 16th, 2009
Maybe they just think it is wrong.
Nothing un-democratic about voicing your opinion, or campaigning for or against a candidate.
Notice that some have no problem using anti-religious viewpoints against people they don't like. Not that it be displaying their tribalism to do so. No, certainly not.
at 08:09 on November 16th, 2009
There is a big difference - if you are against something then you are making a value judgment that someone's else moral choice is bad.
If you state that it not anyone's opinion but theirs, then you are not making a judgment of good or bad just supporting individual liberty.
Now, I happen to personally think that religion is a retrograde force. I think that its outcome for many of its believers in a broader social contract is negative.
They are very separate logistical streams. Homosexuality, nothing to do with me it is not a moral framework. it is a sexual option. Religious oppression of individual liberty and choice - to me a bad thing
at 08:16 on November 16th, 2009
alrighty then. Glad you made that clear.
Out of the pool, everyone.
NO MORE VALUE JUDGMENTS. EVER.
If someone wants to pleasure himself in the pool, he is simply exercising his sexual option.
at 08:08 on November 16th, 2009
rng: Agree up to a point. I think that it's theology, not tribal values that such the hot issue in this story. This candidate is up for a fight, in Texas, even if the candidate, as stated above, "does not make an issue of her sexual orientation."
at 08:11 on November 16th, 2009
I agree - I just see religion as a base tribal contract. They wear their 'colors' of their particular creed the same as a gang member wears theirs. If there is only one Jesus, it makes a little mockery of the Heinz 57 of churches. That is why I term it tribal, in this case theology creates the tribe
at 16:11 on November 16th, 2009
Sounds much like unto a value judgment to me.
at 16:38 on November 16th, 2009
Yup. As I said I personally think that the the extreme social conservative values that the Church espouses are a negative. So I am absolutely judging it as such.
Someone's sexuality choices don't impact me (as long as it is legal)
However, someone keep telling me thou shalt not on issues not enshrined in secular law I resent. I obey the law. My moral choices are my own
at 07:51 on November 17th, 2009
"They wear their 'colors' of their particular creed the same as a gang member wears theirs."
...sorta like the Gay Rights activists groups, eh? ...and while we're at it, why not throw in "tribal" groups like political parties and all the other special interest "tribes" such as Veterans Groups, The Rainbow Coalition, NOW, la Raza, NAACP, Am.Civ.Lib.Union, AFL/CIO, Planned Parenthood, AARP etc., etc.
at 16:45 on November 16th, 2009
However, if you are against something then you are making a value judgment that someone's else moral choice is bad.
If we say murder is illegal, is that bad? How come it is wrong to murder? That seems to be a "thou shalt not".
Is this value judgment thing cafeteria style?
at 16:58 on November 16th, 2009
I obey the law. (as long as it is legal) is what I said
Last time I looked, murder isn't legal (excluding war, self-defense, state sponsored execution). Is murder always bad - morality is conditional.
If I shoot a mad man raping a child? Morality has nuance - the Church doesn't get that. It doesn't allow for conditional application or evolution (naturally) of moral norms
Every sperm is precious even those of the rapist or the relation that abuses a child. That is why dogma falls short and does not serve an advanced societies.
If a neighbor wants to covet his neighbors wife and she wants coveting, none of your business, mine, the bishops or anyone else's...but the neighbor's husband might care too.
at 18:39 on November 16th, 2009
So if you live in Iran, you would turn in homosexuals that broke the law?
You would have turned in Jews if you lived in Germany during Hitler's reign?
"I obey the law. (as long as it is legal) is what I said" is what you said.
at 19:53 on November 16th, 2009
Maybe. Depends on my individual beliefs
I wouldn't be on my knees in Church doing everything from the Crusades to Jihad, buggering choir boys, marrying children . polygamy or worse
Could be worse, but heck, I'd still be faithful to the dogma
I will repeat for the hard of hearing. Morality is conditional. Legal code, secular code is an changing thing as societies evolve. Your book of eternal laws is to be obeyed. Can't be protested or to changed . That's right - you can't protest or amend the 10 commandments...ever.
Don't you get the difference? One evolves. One can't. One improves. The other can't. One bends to the evil of man, sometimes for better sometimes for worse. The other - sadly is backwards looking for eternity
You have faith. Not logic, faith..that's all.
Secular can go wrong and correct.
Religious societies...not so much
at 05:37 on November 17th, 2009
All very convenient. Lenin used logic to great effect. He was wrong of course, but we won't let that stand in the way of logic.
There are hundreds of thousands in Chinese prisons, and the Chinese government has, logically enough, decided that it is logical to do that.
Will those societies "correct' the wrongs to the 100 million that have died or been imprisoned, due to faulty logic?
You can shout down people because you don't agree, because of your claim to superiority, but it isn't freedom, and it isn't liberty. In the end it is simply thuggery and bully tactics.
at 06:02 on November 17th, 2009
Interestingly enough, the largest prison population as a % of population is not in China or any of the despotic states, it is here in the good old USA.
I am happy to move on from the issue. I respect your right to your faith. I don't have it. I believe in the laws of the land, and think that is what should govern, not the book of any religious creed. That is all
at 19:09 on November 17th, 2009
Not sure what "prison population" in the US has to do with any of this. Just a random remark? If there are a significant number in this country, in prison, due to political or religious views, it would certainly be known. We do let our prisoners communicate with the outside world. Nor do we kill folks, as a matter of course, due to those views.
Many countries do actually kill folks - including the previously mentioned secular Chinese. The secular Soviets did the same, as did a very secular Pol Pot, and many others.
"Secular can go wrong and correct"
When does the secular correct? When? When forced to?
You failed to mention the "logical" correction, or the recourse that the dead, or the imprisoned, have against the "logic" in use, in those places.
I would certainly be keenly interested to discover the answer. I'm certain there will some logic in your response
at 06:19 on November 17th, 2009
Again you show you have not studied the Bible. Thou Shalt Not's were ended with Christ new law...he said there was one.
You are swimming in dangerous waters with your brain as a floating device. Your body would like you to allow it to participate.
at 10:38 on November 17th, 2009
You are being both personally rude and insulting...again You speak to your own person with that level of comment. Sadly, with you I have come to expect no less
Just a quick FYI - the bible consists of both new and old testament. I think you were attempting to allege I hadn't studied the new. I have no requirement to only refer to one - I can use both.
at 19:19 on November 17th, 2009
rng, you say i am being personally rude and insulting? If so, show me where. This is a public forum. My comments are open for all to see. Show me where, when, and to whom i was either rude or insulting (unless it was in jest - and taken as such).
If i was, i will apologize. I intend no personal offense, even when goaded.
If i push an issue, it is because i feel my opponent is wrong.
I can find a fair number of instances where you have pushed what you think is the "religion" button, in an attempt to goad &/or belittle. It bothers me not the least.
Again, i'm fair game - find where i was personally insulting or rude to you. Copy>paste the results here for all to see.
Peace.
at 19:43 on November 17th, 2009
Hugh that comment was not intended for you. I admire robust debate. I think if you scan, and see where I replied you can see where the insult was made toward me, but it wasn't you. If you took it that way, I apologize, that was not the intent