It seems that there are always two schools of thought regarding whether the “private life” of a candidate for elected office or an officeholder is “fair game” for public debate. Those who believe that a person’s morality and character are entirely separate from their business and political affairs are on one side; those who believe that who we are dictates what we do are on another.
This reality has “come home to roost” in the race for mayor of Houston, and as always, the local media are incensed that any dare raise the issue of the radical sexual diversity agenda of one of their “darlings.”
It is highly predictable that when an open homosexual, lesbian, transgender, etc. runs for office with their lifestyle as a primary identifier of who they are, lifestyle is “off limits” for discussion as dictated by the Politically Correct Machine within the media as well as the far left of politics. Stating that activist lesbian Annise Parker – running for mayor of Houston, the fourth largest city in the nation in the heart of the Bible Belt – has made her lifestyle a core part of her public policy is asserting fact, not opinion.
Why has Parker (and Lane Lewis running for city council) been on the national top priority list of the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund? Why was the Houston mayoral race on CNN’s national “Ten Key Election Races and Results” on Nov. 3? In their own words, “The nation’s fourth-largest city could elect its first openly gay mayor.”
Also fact is that the gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender lobby fielded candidates in multiple races for Houston City Council to increase their numbers on that governing body. Are we supposed to be lemmings and assume there is no agenda at play here? Please.
The “elephant in the room” of this mayoral campaign is Parker’s long and very public track record of advocating same-sex marriage, taxpayer-funded benefits for same-sex partners of city employees, elevating even “gender identity” to a protected class as well as every agenda item of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. Houston is not yet San Francisco, Chicago, Detroit or New York, and the voters here have repeatedly stated through city referendums that such policies are not welcome – and a supermajority voted to keep the traditional definition of marriage as only between one man and one woman.
Hundreds of pastors and thousands of citizens refuse to be silenced and keep the debate at the level of road repair, transportation infrastructure, city spending and other such fiscal issues, important as they are. Nothing, I repeat, nothing is as important to the future of this city, state and nation as the protection and restoration of the nuclear family grounded in marriage, having both a mother and a father raising their children and committed to a healthy, nurturing home.
Myriad studies done regarding the physical, emotional, economic, educational and spiritual well-being of children confirm that the highest levels of each of these critical areas of protection occur within the confines of a strong marriage. The radical agenda to “undefine” marriage directly through courts and legislatures has failed, but the “death by a thousand cuts” through elevating nonmarital same-sex or opposite-sex relationships to equal status in every other area of public policy as per California and Washington state is just as threatening.
Those of the clergy who believe in family and marriage as defined by God, recognized by centuries of our ancestors and affirmed as a vital institution of compelling state interest to promote for our own posterity, must exercise our right and duty to make sure the voters are well-informed and do their duty by voting those values.
Once again we are reminded that ballot measures are only a temporary solution to the true and foundational duty to elect leaders of strong faith, conviction and character to policymaking offices at all levels. We cannot have it both ways – and whether we like it or not, we are charged with being politically active as a ministry to our God, our fellow man and our country.
This is an act of love, not of bigotry.