So Ben Hall puts out a nice ad about himself and his wife:
BEN: I met Saundra in church, I was seventeen.
SAUNDRA: He’s wearing orange bell bottoms, white platform shoes, and I nudged my cousin and said, what is that?
BEN: I was the first boy she ever kissed.
SAUNDRA: I was attracted to his intelligence, but I was thinking more like pastor and pastor’s wife.
BEN: April eighteenth, nineteen eighty-one, seven PM. Married thirty-two years.
SAUNDRA: And he’s still never given me a proper honeymoon.
It’s a great ad for a politician. It humanizes the candidate and adds both a positive message to the campaign and a bit of humor.
Nice, right? I mean, really sweet. Right?
Not if you are a member of Houston’s GLBT community. As usual for this campaign, the media looks for anything negative to run against Ben Hall. In this Houston Chronicle article by Kiah Collier, she finds this:
Officials with Houston GLBT Political Caucus, though, said Hall’s message seems designed to juxtapose his values with those of Mayor Annise Parker – the first openly gay mayor of a major U.S. city.
“Ben Hall’s latest ad is a thinly-veiled ‘traditional family values’ ad,” said a Thursday post on the caucus’ Facebook page. “Get those homophobic votes while you still can.”
Are you kidding me? Go watch that ad again, I’ll wait.
Pray tell, exactly what part of that ad is “homophobic”? And why would anyone need to “thinly veil” an ad featuring a man and a woman that have been married 32 years? Since when did that become a crime?
Here’s a tip for the Houston GLBT community – stop wearing your knickers so tight! And stop thinking that anything and everything that depicts a heterosexual couple is “homophobic” behavior.
I was especially disappointed to see Houston GLBT Political Caucus President Noel Freeman chiming in. Noel seems like a pretty level headed, reasonable person. Hey Noel, here’s a tip for you: Have Annise Parker make a similar ad with her life partner! Just as Hall’s ad humanizes him as a politician, a similar ad for Parker would do the same. Not only that, it would help your entire community. Stop whining and complaining and DO something to change hearts and minds.
This nonsense makes it especially hard for people like me that are trying to encourage the Harris County Republican Party to reach out to the Houston GLBT community in those areas in which we hold common beliefs.
And by the way, Ben, congratulations on 32 years. You beat me to it by exactly 8 months – my anniversary is December 18th. Oh, and give the girl a proper honeymoon already!
Noel, come on now!
I know it’s tough to see the angry LBGT who control the politics of LBGT do their thing, but this is what they do. They do this every day, every where they can in every aspect of American life. It’s what makes me plant my feet and say no. NO. Unfortunately, Ben Hall is being attacked for being a poster boy for America. No matter how angry they are, how demanding and conniving, they will never be,.
So much for their historic claim that they wanted to be left alone to live their lives, free from government interference. This tells me that they hate heterosexuality, and want to get rid of it.
I’m Tom Zakes, and I approve this message.
Tom, one of the radicals in their movement was caught on tape saying that their goal is to get rid of the institution of marriage.
I think they’re reading between the lines on the ad because they’re a bit torqued at Hall because he has inconstantly articulated his views on their desire to be treated equally under the law.
This could become a moot point in the foreseeable future.
http://www.msnbc.com/martin-bashir/gay-marriage-lawsuit-texas
David, news flash, we don’t have common beliefs in common.
Janet, that is not true. There are many people in the GLBT community that share conservative beliefs regarding limited government, fiscal conservatism, foreign affairs, abortion, welfare, and many more. We need their votes on these issues. It is not necessary to agree with the GLBT community on marriage but we must temper our rhetoric on the subject. As they must, which was the point of the post.
David, the portion of the GLBT community that are tearing their hair out over Hall’s comments are not going to temper their views on marriage or temper their agenda. I don’t think we need to sell our political souls to bring any group in and gain their votes. We’ve seen enough of that in Austin & DC, which is one reason Ted Cruz has soared in popularity.
I’ve never asked anyone to “sell their soul” to bring in other groups. Tempering our rhetoric is not selling our souls. Ted is very popular with an ever shrinking group and we have to find ways to expand that group if we (Ted) is going to be successful in the future.
I don’t know that “tearing their hair out” is accurate description of most GLBT citizens. I do know for a fact that they are quite intentionally treated unequally under the law in Texas. Such laws have longed puzzled me. It’s not as if perpetuating the needless discrimination they live with every day is going to make them “go straight.”
It is demonstrable that in jurisdictions where they do enjoy the same treatment afforded to other couples under civil laws, no harm is done to “traditional” marriages, or society in general. What is to be gained from continuing to discriminate against a harmless minority?
Yet, enshrined within the 22 page Texas Republican Party Platform (and excluding the table of contents) I find “marriage” mentioned 21 times, 18 of which are directly in the context of how vitally important it is for government to continue treating these human beings in a manner lesser than their equals. For example:
The plaintiffs in the lawsuit I mentioned earlier (linked above) can effortlessly prove that state sanctioned discrimination exists, and that it harms them. To prevail, Texas Republicans will have to demonstrate a compelling reason for that discrimination to exist, and persist.
I don’t think y’all can do that. But I’m certain that Greg Abbott will try!
You say the GLBT community is treated unequally. Let’s see now, they can work at any job they choose, they can live anywhere they choose, they can live with whom they choose to live with, they can go to any store, any restaurant, etc. they choose, they can go to any place of worship they choose, they can live in any state they choose. It seems to me that covers everything anyone else does, except for the institution of marriage, or am I missing something. So tell me where is the discrimination. As far as Greg Abbott, he’s already come out as being in favor of the traditional definition of marriage. Nice try Bob, your unfounded claims of discrimination just don’t fly.
What is no longer concealed is the pretext of the radical GLBT movement. Edith Windsor’s case before SCOTUS, for example, was about her claim to a Federal estate tax exemption for surviving spouses; a tax which could easily be repealed through Congress if they had the courage to do so. That tax should be repealed so all persons can pass the accumulated wealth onto their heirs of their choice. And it is on that principle I agree with Edith Windsor. What is missing IMHO, are people running for office who can recognize a tax issue from a First Amendment issue and sadly that ability is sorely lacking on both sides of the aisle.
Good comment Yvonne. Another thing I would like to add is that, provided they have a will, the GLBT community, like anyone else, can leave their assets to anyone they like upon their death. All of these cries of discrimination from all of these self-proclaimed victims is getting really tiresome.
Janet Thomas:
OK, consider the case of an infertile heterosexual couple whose marriage is recognized in Texas, that conceives a child via IVF or donor insemination. By law, the non-biologically related parent’s name is automatically included on the birth certificate. As a direct result he is automatically afforded all the rights and benefits of parenthood, including rights of custody and survivorship. Now, consider “Cindy and Tracie” (made up names, but real people that I know personally, who live in Texas and are excellent parents, btw) who conceive via similar measures. For Cindy and Tracie, there are significant additional burdens and hoops to jump through, thanks to Texas law. For either to legally adopt their spouse’s child, each had to cough up about $3K in legal fees, per kid. On top of all the other costs associated with bringing a new life into this world, that $3K would buy a lot of diapers. This is but one example of discrimination, and harm caused by current Texas law. I have plenty more examples. Feel free to ask.
I hope I have substantiated my claims of existing discrimination and the harms done to Texas citizens by such, to your satisfaction. Can you tell me why this discrimination needs to exist, why it is necessary, and why the state has a rational interest in perpetuating it?
Janet Thomas- Your assumptions are patently false.
“You say the GLBT community is treated unequally. Let’s see now, they can work at any job they choose, they can live anywhere they choose,”
This is not true. In Texas it is illegal for an employer to fire someone based on their religion. However, if they later find out that that employee is gay they can fire them for that reason without any legal repercussions.
The same is true for housing. In Texas a landlord cannot refuse or kick out a tennet based on race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin. Yet sexuality is fair game
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PR/htm/PR.301.htm#301.021
So no Gay Texans cannot live anywhere they want and their job options are limited based on their sexuality. This is discrimination plain and simple. And for one I am highly embarrassed that my party, the party of individual liberty supports this.
Great comment. Who are they going to sue for that – God?
Well Janet, can you tell me why this discrimination needs to exist, why it is necessary, and why the state has a rational interest in perpetuating it?