HER Ordinance heads to voters in November. Katherine Driessen,Chron.com
From "Blue Texas" in the comments:
What a great opportunity for us to vote on other peoples(sic) rights. Maybe we should revisit "colored" folks using white drinking fountains, or sitting on the front of the bus. How about we put(sic) women's right to vote on the ballot?
Or better yet, how about we have a vote, in Houston, on castrating every white male republican we find within the city limits after sundown.(sic)
If this was political parody it would be well played.
But it's not. It's what passes for an attempt at real political satire by some (not all) in what's left of the Texas Democratic Party.
Want to know (one reason) why you're losing votes folks?
Beyond that it's probably worthwhile to take a look at some of the finer points in Mr. Blue's commentary....
What a great opportunity for us to vote on other peoples(sic) rights. Maybe we should revisit "colored" folks using white drinking fountains, or sitting on the front of the bus. How about we put(sic) women's right to vote on the ballot?
Except that, those rights are protected by either Federal statute, or Constitutional Amendment and cannot be overridden by a Houston city ordinance or election. From a Federal perspective, the GLBTIQ community is NOT currently a protected class. This is what's known as a straw man argument. It's also a non-sequitur. For a straw-man to be effective it has to be realistic and illustrative. This is neither.
Perhaps there is something to the argument that the recognition (not granting, the government cannot "grant" rights) of rights for a minority class should not be subject to the whims of the majority. I am OK with the validity of this and think it's an important part of the American experiment. What IS (and should be) subject to the voter is how their elected officials choose to word that recognition. In this case, in her haste to make HER Ordinance what she wanted it to be, Mayor Parker chose some pretty dodgy wording that could have many unintended consequences going forward.
I am all for the GLBTIQ community's civil rights being recognized, but I (and others) have some fairly legitimate concerns about the 'gender self-identity' language that was inserted into the ordinance. It was way too broad and left way too much room for misinterpretation. A tighter, more focused bill would still have detractors but it would probably also garner enough public support to pass. My contention on this has never been that it's a bad issue (maybe odd timing considering all of the other, more pressing, problems Houston is facing) only a bad ordinance.
Maybe, instead of building straw men and trying to roll back the Civil Rights Act and all of the Supreme Court rulings surrounding it, sensible people should work to craft a better ordinance?
Or better yet, how about we have a vote, in Houston, on castrating every white male republican we find within the city limits after sundown.(sic)
Snicker. Try as I might I cannot come up with a rebuttal that's funnier than this statement just presented on its own. That the writer thought it clever makes it funnier still.
I've been accused, by many, of being angry on this blog. Those who know me understand just how wrong that accusation is. In fact, I'm very happy, and when I blog it's always with a chuckle, even on serious issues such as this. There is little funnier than the political class running amok and the responses of the courtesan class that attempt to justify the same. If you want to see real, impotent, lashing-out at others political anger go read the comments on Chron.com. Especially if you're feeling down and need a laugh (or three).
If you're Republican however I might suggest you avoid Mr. Blue after sundown. He's probably against trophy hunting of animals, but I'm willing to bet he'd create a viewing room for his collection of Republican trunks. (Yeouch!)
