Mr. Oakley is gay, Mr. Leppert is straight. Both are runoff candidates in Dallas' upcoming mayoral election.
Today's Dallas Morning News states the following:
"Mr. Leppert, who has won the lucrative support of Dallas' business establishment, said he would not make his opponent's sexuality an issue in the race. 'I want people to focus on what we need to do to make Dallas the finest city in America,' he said in a recent interview. Mr. Oakley's supporters have noticed, however, that Mr. Leppert frequently mentions that he is married and has children and often points out his wife at candidate forums. 'They use all the buzzwords about lifestyle, including references to his family and his children and his wife being in the audience,' noted Mr. Bailey, who has attended recent forums."
So let me get this straight (haha) -- according to Oakley's camp, apparently it's okay for Oakley to mention his sexual orientation, but somehow it's not okay for Leppert to mention he has a family and children? That's ridiculous. But what do you expect from the gay juggernaut?
I'm tired of double-standards plaguing our country. Vote on June 16. Make a difference.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Yeah I believe in voting. And in voting for a mayoral candidate, I should suggest in voting for the best incumbent, not the straightest, or gayest...
Things of personal matter that would concern me in a mayor are:
*credit score
*college transcripts
*criminal record
I will tell you one positive thing about having an elected gay mayor, is avoiding the whole adultery sex-scandal (which our former president got caught up in).
So may the people show up to the voting poles, and may their votes be pertinent to the position. May the new mayor serve his people in a professional manner; straight or gay.
...one more thing, addressing the original post about the double standard.
I believe that it is okay for Leppert to mention he has a family and children, in fact preffered.
For Oakley not to mention his "family," or lack of children reveals to me that he is a man that is pursuaded by cultural pressures, and so-called social norms.
PEOPLE, this is a serious office that they are running for! How will they act as leaders? Have they lead well in the past? Are they transparent and trustworthy?
My opinion is that by Oakley failing to express the love and closeness for the ones that he loves and keeps close, he is not reliable.
Note, it is not because he is gay that is a problem.
Sorry Disco Stu, but I completely disagree with you. Ok, not completely. I do believe that people should vote for the best candidate and vote their values... and that's just it. As a Christian I strongly believe that voting for the best candidate means voting for the candidate that IS NOT GAY.
All that aside, let's even drift away from the issue of Christian values-voting for a moment... The problem in this election is that it IS about whether or not Oakley is gay. It can't not be. If he gets elected into office, it won't necessarily be because of his credentials as a candidate, but instead because of his sexual orientation. It's too much of a landmark issue to be swept aside flippantly.
IF we could truly look past the orientation of a candidate in this day and age to his credentials, then it would be a revelation to note that his sexual orientation drives his credentials. Leppert has a wife and kids, and therefore family values are of interest to him. Oakley is gay, therefore gay rights will be of interest. No candidate can completely seperate their personal life from their platform.
Also, I would argue that electing a gay mayor will not eliminate the possibility of a sex-scandal in the office. Gay people have sex, too, just not in a marriage bed. So while avoiding adultery, you take on a mess of other sex-scandal issues.
In conclusion, I have to concur with Scott on this one (and it's not just because I'm about to marry him), and disagree (lovingly, of course) with your thesis, Disco Stu.
One more little thing, Stu-man...
Is it REALLY about the most trustworthy candidate? Or do you have to look at the issues, too?
Thing is, I trust Oakley completely to institute his values in the city of Dallas. Sometimes trust is not just based on a lack of lying, but on the values that truly make him worthy of my trust. To me, trustworthy means that I can trust him to do the best thing for the city of Dallas. And my values are behind my belief of what that best thing is. Make sense?
Bonnie,
Though I am a Christian, as you know, voting my values would limit the qualified candidates to those that are Christian-only. From there we'd have to think, well he goes to that denomination, or graduated from that seminary... point is that neither of these people have to be Christian to be mayor - if they were voting on a pastor I would part from this view.
I am not certain that family values is of high priority for a mayor either, though it is a priority. As a mayor, the candidate will be like the CEO of the city - this campaign should center around business and politics, not marriage and family... there we go again trying to set up a theocracy, as he cling to a subtle hope that if we set up a godly government for the secular society that Christ will return; that's post-millennialism.
I am not altogether convinced that a gay mayor would insist on pushing the gay agenda. Again this position is for mayor, not the next partner of Disney World. Dallas is not a private company.
Bonnie you are right that the race should not center on peripheral issues; sexual orientation. If either candidate wins because he is straight or gay it would reveal the ignorance of the voting people!
Likewise, in the presidential race, I believe the same is going on in the democratic camp - on two fronts; M(r)s. Clinton in being a woman, and Barack as being other-than white.
I believe that any voter, especially the Christian voter should vote, and vote for the person who is most qualifies. In this case it is for "mayor," not the Children and Family Minister of a mega-church. We need a person that can run the city!
Post a Comment