http://nounequalrights.com/informat...l-showdown-in-houston-on-the-november-ballot/
I can't believe the nonsense going on at taxpayers' expense. (What's even crazier is that I am a pro-choice Democrat, who totally supports gay equality and marriage, but as a Constitutionalist I find the process of pushing biased laws without consent of the public to be unlawful, where it goes too far and starts imposing, excluding or discriminating against people of opposite beliefs. The concept and intent are correct, but the means are unethical and unconstitutional, and should require correction or removal from office!)
Mayor Annise Parker practically admits owing personal representation to the LGBT supporters who donated millions to her campaigns to ensure her election to the maximum number terms (including large donations from California, clearly outside the City of Houston she is supposed to represent). Now that she's on her last term, sheI finally did what she promised she wouldn't do, which is to use her office to campaign for gay marriage.
First, she used her Mayoral authority to change the city policies to recognize gay partnerships as married spouses eligible for city employee benefits, which invoked a lawsuit arguing that this violates Texas law and the proper legislative procedures necessary to amend laws. Parker was advised it was legal for her to make such changes, citing the law was unconstitutional if it excluded same sex marriage not recognized in Texas.
Next, when she first pushed the HERO Houston Equal Rights Ordinance, it was presented as just expanding employment policies prohibiting discrimination by race, religion, etc. to include "orientation"
But as written, the ordinance called for allowing the use of public restrooms, showers and other facilities by transgendered/cross-dressing persons based on their chosen identity, and not their physical gender which the State of Texas recognizes by birth certificate.
The public uproar and objections by the Houston community included a diverse mix of Muslims, Christian churches, Latino and African American pastors and congregations; and legal teams pointed out that the language in the ordinance created security issues, where men dressed up as women could enter into the women's restrooms. UNQUESTIONED, as the ordinance threatened fines up to $5,000 for discrimination or harassment, if such individuals were even approached with questions concerning their gender.
Due to these objections, the first vote got delayed two weeks. But the contested parts were not corrected to the satisfaction of the protesting citizens. So when the ordinance passed by an 11-6 vote, the same groups still contested that the problems with the ordinance remained, or were made worse by the revisions that still allowed security risks, which the City denies.
The next step was to gather 17,000 signatures in a recall petition within 30 days to block the ordinance from being implemented and enforced by policy. The City is is process of verifying over 5,000 pages and 50,000 signatures to confirm at least 17,000 meet the requirements of citizens eligible to vote in City elections.
http://heropetition.com/home
^ The City is now posting these petitions online to try to expose any voter fraud or forged signatures. The taxpayers also have to pay the cost of voting on this recall referendum on the November ballot, because the Mayor REFUSED to hear objections each time they came up!
Why does it have to cost so much time, resources, hassle and effort on behalf of citizens and government?
Why can't people iron out conflicts BEFORE passing a bill or ordinance to PREVENT all this hassle and cost AFTER the fact?
Is it that hard to see that half the citizens OBJECTED and demanded CORRECTIONS to the policy BEFORE passing it?
That's the part I cannot understand.
Especially if you are concerned about not discriminating against people, isn't this a form of discriminating by creed? To push a bill by majority, and then force the dissenters to defend their beliefs "after the fact" by correcting what you passed that you KNEW did not represent them but excluded people by beliefs?
My conclusion: Whatever "crack" the Democrat Party is on, I need to start smoking the same stuff. Otherwise, I will never get on the same page or planet these people are on!
I can't believe the nonsense going on at taxpayers' expense. (What's even crazier is that I am a pro-choice Democrat, who totally supports gay equality and marriage, but as a Constitutionalist I find the process of pushing biased laws without consent of the public to be unlawful, where it goes too far and starts imposing, excluding or discriminating against people of opposite beliefs. The concept and intent are correct, but the means are unethical and unconstitutional, and should require correction or removal from office!)
Mayor Annise Parker practically admits owing personal representation to the LGBT supporters who donated millions to her campaigns to ensure her election to the maximum number terms (including large donations from California, clearly outside the City of Houston she is supposed to represent). Now that she's on her last term, sheI finally did what she promised she wouldn't do, which is to use her office to campaign for gay marriage.
First, she used her Mayoral authority to change the city policies to recognize gay partnerships as married spouses eligible for city employee benefits, which invoked a lawsuit arguing that this violates Texas law and the proper legislative procedures necessary to amend laws. Parker was advised it was legal for her to make such changes, citing the law was unconstitutional if it excluded same sex marriage not recognized in Texas.
Next, when she first pushed the HERO Houston Equal Rights Ordinance, it was presented as just expanding employment policies prohibiting discrimination by race, religion, etc. to include "orientation"
But as written, the ordinance called for allowing the use of public restrooms, showers and other facilities by transgendered/cross-dressing persons based on their chosen identity, and not their physical gender which the State of Texas recognizes by birth certificate.
The public uproar and objections by the Houston community included a diverse mix of Muslims, Christian churches, Latino and African American pastors and congregations; and legal teams pointed out that the language in the ordinance created security issues, where men dressed up as women could enter into the women's restrooms. UNQUESTIONED, as the ordinance threatened fines up to $5,000 for discrimination or harassment, if such individuals were even approached with questions concerning their gender.
Due to these objections, the first vote got delayed two weeks. But the contested parts were not corrected to the satisfaction of the protesting citizens. So when the ordinance passed by an 11-6 vote, the same groups still contested that the problems with the ordinance remained, or were made worse by the revisions that still allowed security risks, which the City denies.
The next step was to gather 17,000 signatures in a recall petition within 30 days to block the ordinance from being implemented and enforced by policy. The City is is process of verifying over 5,000 pages and 50,000 signatures to confirm at least 17,000 meet the requirements of citizens eligible to vote in City elections.
http://heropetition.com/home
^ The City is now posting these petitions online to try to expose any voter fraud or forged signatures. The taxpayers also have to pay the cost of voting on this recall referendum on the November ballot, because the Mayor REFUSED to hear objections each time they came up!
Why does it have to cost so much time, resources, hassle and effort on behalf of citizens and government?
Why can't people iron out conflicts BEFORE passing a bill or ordinance to PREVENT all this hassle and cost AFTER the fact?
Is it that hard to see that half the citizens OBJECTED and demanded CORRECTIONS to the policy BEFORE passing it?
That's the part I cannot understand.
Especially if you are concerned about not discriminating against people, isn't this a form of discriminating by creed? To push a bill by majority, and then force the dissenters to defend their beliefs "after the fact" by correcting what you passed that you KNEW did not represent them but excluded people by beliefs?
My conclusion: Whatever "crack" the Democrat Party is on, I need to start smoking the same stuff. Otherwise, I will never get on the same page or planet these people are on!
Last edited:
