Houston Elects Lesbian Mayor
When the LA Times called Annise Parker, Houston’s Mayor-Elect “conservative,” I thought that maybe this lesbian is a Republican, but, alas, she is not. In the Space City’s mayoral runoff yesterday, she “defeated former City Attorney Gene Locke on an austere platform, convincing voters that her financial bona fides and restrained promises would be best suited in trying financial times.“
Seems the main issue which propelled her to victory wasn’t her sexuality, but her fiscal common sense. While she was “opposed by conservative religious groups and anti-gay activists“,
Houston voters [were] concerned less with lifestyle issues and more with bread-and-butter issues like the budget, public safety and city services, said Bob Stein, a political science professor at Rice University in Houston.
She wasn’t running as the lesbian candidate for Mayor, but as a prudent manager of the city’s finances who happened to be lesbian. Her victory seems to be emblematic of the changing attitudes toward gays, that if gay and lesbian candidates run for office on issues of concern to voters in their jurisdiction, where their sexuality is incidental to their political philosophy and campaign platform, voters will look past their sexuality and consider the merits of their person and their policy proposals.
With Mayor-Elect Parker’s background in financial management and commitment to sound budgetary policies, it looks like, come January 1, the City of Houston will be in good hands.
(H/t for news of election Instapundit.)
32 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I have to wonder why these groups come out of the woodwork to oppose a candidate only because (s)he is gay.
The fact that she’s gay is no more a reason to vote against her than it is a reason to vote for her (all else being equal).
I hope for Houston’s sake that she is an able mayor.
I noted that the turnout for this run-off was small (150,000 in a city of more than two million people) so it doesn’t look like much actual interest.
Comment by SoCalRobert — December 13, 2009 @ 4:04 pm - December 13, 2009
Good for Houston.
Comment by Patrick — December 13, 2009 @ 4:30 pm - December 13, 2009
Now that Houston has had a woman mayor, a black mayor, and now a gay mayor, can we please get past the tokens and just focus on having a GOOD mayor?
Comment by Less — December 13, 2009 @ 5:24 pm - December 13, 2009
I forget which commenter here said it, but it bears repeating: the American people are anti anti-gay. The social conservatives really shot themselves in the foot in this election. Their behavior & literature attacking this woman was a public disgrace. To all those Christian activists here in Maine (who are vowing to make SSM support a defining issue in next year’s legislative contests) take heed here: making anti-gay sentiment a focal point of your campaign will backfire on you. It happened once before. In 1993, Lewiston, Maine repealed a gay rights ordinance 2-1. The next year, 1 senate district and 2 house districts had candidates who made opposition to gay rights a centerpiece of their campaigns. Over and over they said “the people have rejected “special rights” for gays”. Our opponents support “special rights”. That’s all they mentioned; johnny one-notes. Come election time all 3 were trounced.
Comment by Jim Michaud — December 13, 2009 @ 5:38 pm - December 13, 2009
I like that she is a professed fiscal conservative. Houstonians will now see whether that’s true or not.
I also like the fact that she is a lesbian if only because the soc-cons in Houston made complete and utter asses of themselves and her sexuality galls them so. Good.
All my best to the Mayor-elect!
Comment by John — December 13, 2009 @ 6:03 pm - December 13, 2009
The terms “CONSERVATIVE” and “LIBERAL” have lost most of their intellectual content. Who can really agree who is a conservative or liberal? Or on the terms themselves?
Can one be a conservative and be in favor of big government to use its power to disenfranchise gays?
Can one be a conservative and be in favor of small government, fiscal prudence, love of country and in favor of gay marriage?
Are you liberal if you favor gay marriage rights?
Are the religious far-right who use government to prevent gay really conservative?
Who decides, and by what litmus test?
Comment by Man — December 13, 2009 @ 6:55 pm - December 13, 2009
Should have said . . . Are the religious far-right who use government to prevent gay rights really conservative?
Comment by Man — December 13, 2009 @ 6:59 pm - December 13, 2009
GayPatriot » Houston Elects Lesbian Mayor…
Thank you for submitting this cool story – Trackback from PunditKix…
Trackback by PunditKix — December 13, 2009 @ 8:01 pm - December 13, 2009
Houston is rather left in it’s pols, but Texas as a whole has a goodly number of Dems who would likely be Repubs in any New England state. emains to be seen just how fiscally conservative she turns out.
Haven’t paid it much attention, and oddly the news I’ve read on it leaves off the lesbian portion of her dossier.
Comment by JP — December 13, 2009 @ 8:47 pm - December 13, 2009
I hope she lives up to her fiscally conservative promises.
Comment by Michael — December 13, 2009 @ 9:01 pm - December 13, 2009
I don’t care who she sleeps with as long as my garbage picked up and the potholes on my street are repaired.
Comment by Evans Tibetsy — December 13, 2009 @ 9:19 pm - December 13, 2009
I believe that she’s the one Peter Hughes favored. TGCpartner lives in the portion of Kingwood in Montgomery County, so he was disinterested.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 13, 2009 @ 9:33 pm - December 13, 2009
“Are the religious far-right who use government to prevent gay rights really conservative?”
Of course they are. I agree with you that the meaning of “liberal” and “conservative” are ever changing in our culture – but the definition of “conservatism’ as being equal to nothing other than smaller government is totally bogus. It is an attempt by the libertarian wing of the right to appropriate the name of an ideology which has far broader support than they do.
Conservatism, if it is to have any meaning at all, is based on preserving the traditional social relationships and institutions. Opposing social innovations in favor of how things have always been done. Conservatives were against civil rights, against women’s rights, against gay rights – because the second or third class citizenship of these groups is simply how it has always been in Western, and non-Western civilizations. There is almost always a religious justification thrown in for good measure.
The notion that we in the West, for the first time in human history, should up end the traditional set of values and allow gays to live openly as fully equal citizens, is a radically liberal idea. Of course, like all other social innovations, to the extent that it is actually taken up by society and accepted, then it begins to find support amongst a new generation of conservatives – because now it is becoming part of the new tradition.
Conservatism eventually embraces all these movements for equality, but only after a new generation has grown up in a world where these rights are taken for granted.
Comment by Tano — December 13, 2009 @ 10:00 pm - December 13, 2009
Texas is a great state, Houston is a great city.
Both with their own style of freedom and tolerance.
It got old having to defend Texas and Houston from the ignorant comments from so many other Americans.
Can you anti-Texas folks now please go back to your identity politics and maybe elect a gay mayor in say, Boston, Chicago, New York.
It’s not difficult, you just vote for the person and not the group.
Comment by Geena — December 13, 2009 @ 10:37 pm - December 13, 2009
Annise Parker has never made an issue of being lesbian, nor has she tried to hide her sexual preference. She has shown herself to be fiscally conservative and has a good reputation for competence in politics and in management here in Houston. I did not see/hear any ads referencing her sexuality, so the ads were not effective. I suspect that the black churches, who supported Gene Locke, may have been the source of any sexual slurs that were thrown around. Both candidates were Democrats. The lone Republican in the original mayoral race (4 candidates) was an Hispanic conservative who spent only about $5,000 on advertising. He did remarkably well, given his lack of name recognition and money. The conservatives supported Annise Parker over Gene Locke. Annise Parker will be evaluated on her performance as a manager, but if she decides to play gay “victim” she’ll find herself in trouble politically. However, she strikes me as an extremely competent woman who is not inclined to be anyone’s victim. Her sexual preferences are peripheral to her talent to manage finances and city business. She also has more experience (and thus, more name recognition) than any of the other candidates.
Comment by TexasMom — December 13, 2009 @ 11:22 pm - December 13, 2009
#13: “Of course, like all other social innovations, to the extent that it is actually taken up by society and accepted, then it begins to find support amongst a new generation of conservatives – because now it is becoming part of the new tradition.”
Talking Points Tano, considering that you are well-known on this blog to be an admitted RACIST who supports and endorses the advancement and promotion of individuals based SOLELY on the degree and hue of pigmentation in their skin, please be advised that the rest of us listen closely for an uproarious laugh-track when you condescendingly prattle on about “social innovations.” Irrational, racist policies that reward darker-skinned individuals with lesser qualifications at the expense of lighter-skinned individuals with superior qualifications are not socially innovative. They are RACIST, and no matter how many more decades you and your gang of ignorant bigots fight tooth-and-nail to preserve it as a “traditional” part of American society, it will NEVER find support with conservatives. Deciding who in our society is valued and rewarded and who is condemned and victimized based on things like skin color, genitalia, and sexual attraction is YOOOOUUUUR thing. Not our thing. YOUR thing. The only difference between you and a 1930s slack-jawed Louisiana Grand Dragon is that you haven’t started burning crosses yet. Which basically means you’re a bigot AND a lazy so-and-so.
Comment by Sean A — December 14, 2009 @ 12:16 am - December 14, 2009
Parker has not proven herself to be a fiscal conservative. In fact, her voting record as City Councilwoman and her performance as City Controller have proven her to be someone completely disinterested in reining in out-of-control spending. But, at least she is smart enough to realize “fiscal conservatism” is the platform for the times. Maybe she even intends to really try it.
And….if a Democrat can wise up, maybe Republicans will too.
Comment by riograndevalleygirl — December 14, 2009 @ 5:41 am - December 14, 2009
“One legislator accused me of having a nineteenth-century attitude on law and order. That is a totally false charge. I have an eighteenth-century attitude. That is when the Founding Fathers made it clear that the safety of law-abiding citizens should be one of the government’s primary concerns. ” Ronald Reagan.
Other ‘eighteenth century attitudes’ from Ronaldus Maximus.
“Recognizing the equality of all men and women, we are willing and able to lift the weak, cradle those who hurt, and nurture the bonds that tie us together as one nation under God. ”
“There is no limit to what a man can do or where he can go if he doesn’t mind who gets the credit.”
“If we look to the answer as to why for so many years we achieved so much, prospered as no other people on earth, it was because here in this land we unleashed the energy and individual genius of man to a greater extent than has ever been done before. Freedom and the dignity of the individual have been more available and assured here than in any other place on earth. The price for this freedom at times has been high, but we have never been unwilling to pay the price. ”
“In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. From time to time we’ve been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else? All of us together, in and out of government, must bear the burden. ”
“You and I, as individuals, can, by borrowing, live beyond our means, but for only a limited period of time. Why, then, should we think that collectively, as a nation, we’re not bound by that same limitation? We must act today in order to preserve tomorrow. ”
“I hope we once again have reminded people that man is not free unless government is limited. There’s a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: As government expands, liberty contracts.”
“”We the people” tell the government what to do, it doesn’t tell us. “We the people” are the driver, the government is the car. And we decide where it should go, and by what route, and how fast. Almost all the world’s constitutions are documents in which governments tell the people what their privileges are. Our Constitution is a document in which “We the people” tell the government what it is allowed to do. “We the people” are free.”
Comment by The_Livewire — December 14, 2009 @ 6:58 am - December 14, 2009
You are to at least some extent a *left*-liberal, yes, since under U.S. case, law a State marriage license isn’t even a right for straights yet. Sorry Man
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 14, 2009 @ 10:21 am - December 14, 2009
Conservatives were against civil rights, against women’s rights, against gay rights – because the second or third class citizenship of these groups is simply how it has always been in Western, and non-Western civilizations. There is almost always a religious justification thrown in for good measure.
Sorry, Tano, it was the Liberal Dems who fought against giving civil rights OR equal rights to women or blacks. Conservatives are FOR protecting FREEDOM. Libs were VERY afraid that the equality issue would upset their social rigging of the status quo. You will find that Liberals are far more “closed minded” than their literature would profess. Protecting the sanctity of marriage is about protecting rights…rights that are trampled daily by “progressive” initaitves that seek to tear down marriage, family, Christian values – separately and together.
Religious freedom of Christians – who founded this nation and upon whose precepts so many of our founding prinicipals are built – has been stomped on by loud, vulgar in-your-face hostile voices. The gay community – unfortunately – has taken this tactic (ie. the post Prop 8 vote terrorism, the GLSEN indoctrination in public schools etc) and allied itself with rationale that has nothing to do with protecting right and freedoms but instead taking away others’ right to practice their faith.
Comment by suze — December 14, 2009 @ 10:45 am - December 14, 2009
I like your point that she wasn’t running as the “lesbian candidate.” I truly believe that this is the attitude that needs to take root in every for racial and gender discrimination to be squashed. As long as folks are identifying themselves only as a minority or as a female or as a gay, then of course, everything that happens against you is because of that particular identification. It couldn’t possibly be for some other reason. When people don’t like me or what I do, I don’t extrapolate that to being a female or a minority, but perhaps they just don’t like me as a person, or perhaps I am actually wrong (that rarely happen :0) ), or perhaps they are just a rude person all together. Overcoming discrimination will not happen because of forcing “understanding and education” on folks and highlighting the differences, but by focusing on what we share in common. We all have ambitions and goals, similar pastimes, we are all working to be accepted by people who don’t like us, we are all Americans. Why can’t we bond over something shared, like fiscal conservatism, rather than relatively superficial differences.
Comment by Beverly Lynn — December 14, 2009 @ 11:17 am - December 14, 2009
It’s always amusing watching those of the party of slavery and segregation project their hatred and bigotry.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 14, 2009 @ 1:00 pm - December 14, 2009
There is a line from a movie which I have remembered since I first heard it. In the movie, a young doctor failed to get credit or recognition for a heroic act. A friend asked him if that bothered him. The young man’s reply was “There will never be any credit for me, there will just be the next thing to do.”
Credit may be given to Sen. Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota for being the loudest voice in support for legislation in the late ’50s and early ’60s. Credit may be given to LBJ for pushing legislation.
However, without the leadership and help of Republicans, who had voted for bills to help minorities for decades before 1964, any Democratic Party legislative effort would have been watered down or failed because of obstinate Democrats – i.e., the Dixiecrats.
Neither political party, however, has the right to claim it was responsible for making civil rights for African-Americans happen. Changing times and the efforts of blacks themselves, plus the thousands of electronic pictures blazing across the screens on national television, finally brought it home to white America that injustices were being done to their brethren who happened to be black.
The fact that Democrats are quick to take credit for the Civil Rights Act and for the civil rights movement itself is both phony and a self-absorbed vanity.
Diane Alden http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/12/13/194350.shtml
Comment by rusty — December 14, 2009 @ 1:23 pm - December 14, 2009
Wow, who knew that this post would have comments by Tano and suze giving such shining examples of why both parties suck? I grow weary of the nuts running the asylum…
Comment by John — December 14, 2009 @ 3:35 pm - December 14, 2009
Chicago will elect its first Gay Leader (King in Chicago’s terms), only after anti-semitic homophobe and neo-communist Jesse Jackson goes away… And the man has all cat’s lives he can get… I would not count on having Gay King of Chicago at least until year 2100. Remember CA vote? Most blacks and hispanics voted against Prop 8… Most Chicago blacks and hispanics will vote against equal rights for gays too. A slight majority of whites will likely vote for…
Comment by Axel Rodam — December 14, 2009 @ 4:44 pm - December 14, 2009
The terms “CONSERVATIVE” and “LIBERAL” have lost most of their intellectual content. Who can really agree who is a conservative or liberal? Or on the terms themselves?
Can one be a conservative and be in favor of big government to use its power to disenfranchise gays?
Can one be a conservative and be in favor of small government, fiscal prudence, love of country and in favor of gay marriage?
Are you liberal if you favor gay marriage rights?
Are the religious far-right who use government to prevent gay really conservative?
Who decides, and by what litmus test?
The abouve is a very insightful and significant commentary, although incomplete.
The reality is that what has come to be (mis)defined in this country as “conservative” and “liberal” are in fact two sides of the same coin of statism, both working in favor of failed government solutions.
“Liberalism” on the other hand is defined by Merriam Webster as “a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard; a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, the autonomy of the individual, and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties”.
Essentially, this is the liberalism of John Locke, Adam Smith, etal. Sadly, liberals (real ones) are very few and far between today.
Comment by warren — December 14, 2009 @ 8:24 pm - December 14, 2009
I just hope Annise Parker doesn’t force Kevin Jennings’ reading list on Houston’s school children.
Comment by Seane-Anna — December 14, 2009 @ 10:27 pm - December 14, 2009
“I just hope Annise Parker doesn’t force Kevin Jennings’ reading list on Houston’s school children.”
If she didn’t get the instructions from the Mother Ship when she beamed down with the hordes of other demonic gay people from whatever hellish planet you seem to believe we came from, she might not.
Comment by Lori Heine — December 15, 2009 @ 12:27 am - December 15, 2009
Maybe she’ll ‘force’ Ken Jenning’s reading list on everyone.
“What is ‘an evil Mormon conspiracy’, Alex?”
Seriously, Seana-Anna. You really need to reserve judgement before assuming the worst about someone.
Comment by The_Livewire — December 15, 2009 @ 7:28 am - December 15, 2009
Warren, I agree. Because we find it convenient to use labels, even when they don’t always fit. Unfortunately, the classic term “Liberal” which is still used in Europe is now tainted by our American “liberals” . Your point that many if not most “Conservatives” find it expedient to be statist when it suits them is accurate. I wonder if a term such as “Constitutionalist” might be appropriate? I’ve always considered myself a conservative, as do most of my friends.
Comment by Man — December 15, 2009 @ 9:51 pm - December 15, 2009
Her Mom was a Republican precinct chair back in the time when there were few Republicans in Houston, so she gets her conservative values honestly. This is a great victory for Houston.
Comment by John Galt — December 16, 2009 @ 5:27 pm - December 16, 2009
One more thing – 16% turnout is pretty high for a municipal election runoff in Texas. That might be a sad commentary on politics, but attributing this victory to low turnout is flat wrong.
Comment by John Galt — December 16, 2009 @ 5:30 pm - December 16, 2009