[Better to let the corrupt and connected Democrat “community organizer” win than the lesser of two evils.]
I, as a “conservative,” don’t care if she is gay, because what she does in her house is NONE of my business! But, what she is going to do with my money IS my business, so that is the topic upon which many of us “conservatives” based our votes! Since our options were either a known corrupt lawyer or a gay woman, we just shouldn’t have voted?!?! What she does in her bedroom isn’t going to affect my taxes and cost me millions in bad, corrupt business deals! But Mr. Locke is a lawsuit and tax increase waiting to happen!
I am not sure where you get your “lessor of two evils” claim from, but the last I checked, we are fall short of the One! And he who is without sin should cast the first stone! Please, get off the soapbox and get YOUR priorities straight!
Did you misunderstand me, friend?
I think I’m in agreement with you. I basically stated what I believed was motivating some social conservatives to vote for Locke, not stating my own beliefs.
I’m libertarian anyway. I don’t care for leftist gay politics but then I don’t care for leftist identity politics, in general.
The fact that someone is gay, especially if open about it (closeted could mean vulnerable to blackmail,) is of no significance to me.
If there were a Ronald Reagan II who was even more popular and he said he was gay, I wouldn’t care a jot. It’s much more important that EVERYONE be free than worry about someone’s sexual proclivities, tendencies, etc.
We’ll see where we are in Houston in 6 years. We will probably have the soccer stadium that we don’t need (we already have a billion dollars in other stadiums thanks to the corrupt Democrats and their corrupt pal Ken Lay).
We’ll see if we are buying bunk green energy service. We’ll see if we are buying new fleets of hybrid cars for the city. We’ll see if we are paying benefits for the unmarried sex partners of homosexual city workers.
We’ll see what kind of policies Mayor Parker spends on.