Like Us On Facebook

Thursday, December 19, 2013

City's lesbian mayor sparks 'anarchy' uproar

Seems like it's time for a recall Houston. How the hell did that thing ever get elected in the first place? I swear people have just become stupid.

Houston Mayor Annise Parker (right), pictured with her partner, Kathy Hubbard

A judge in Houston has slapped down lesbian Mayor Annise Parker’s arbitrary decision to use tax money to give partners in homosexual relationships benefits, issuing a temporary restraining order that prevents payment of those benefits at least until a hearing in January.

The recent ruling from Judge Lisa Millard found that “imminent, and irreparable” injury would be imposed on the plaintiffs without the order, which instructed the clerk of the court to issue a temporary injunction “enjoining defendants, Mayor Annise Parker and the City of Houston … and any other person[s] with knowledge of this order, to cease and desist providing benefits to same-sex spouses of employees that have been married in jurisdictions that recognize same-sex marriage.”

WND had reported just days earlier on accusations that Parker was instituting “mob rule” in Houston after she imposed her policy to pay benefits to same-sex couples.

A complaint from Jared Woodfill, chairman of the local Harris County Republican Party, and others, followed. It accused Parker of “unilaterally dispos[ing] of the Houston City Charter and the Texas Constitution without anything even resembling democratic process.”

Parker had announced Nov. 20 that the new policy would offer health and life insurance benefits to all spouses of legally married employees, including same-sex couples.

However, a voter-approved charter amendment in 2001 banned benefits to same-sex couples.

Parker has lived in a lesbian relationship with Kathy Hubbard for 24 years but will remain ineligible for benefits because she is not legally married, the Houston Chronicle reported.

Woodfill asked: “If that is what Mayor Parker thinks of law and order, how can she effectively serve as the chief executive officer of a large municipality, whose first duty is to ensure law and order?”

He said that if the city loses “the rule of law, we give in to mob rule and crony politics, aptly described once as the ‘Chicago way.’”

Millard found Parker’s actions violated the Texas Family Code, the state constitution and the Houston charter.

Woodfill said, “Houston deserves better. Harris County deserves better. Parker does not have the authority to preempt Texas law to promote her own agenda. The rule of law is what makes freedom possible. We give an inch, and the power-hungry among us will take a mile. Today, we protect more than marriage – we protect freedom for all Texans and Americans.”

Millard wrote, “If the temporary injunction is not issued, the defendants’ unlawful policy providing benefits to same-sex spouses of employees that have been married in jurisdictions that recognize same-sex marriage providing benefits to same sex couples will remain in place; therefore, the harm to plaintiffs ‘constitutional and statutory rights is imminent.”

Parker had simply announced the change, arguing that it is “unconstitutional” for the city to deny benefits to same-sex spouses.”

The city’s 2001 charter amendment, however, states: “Except as required by state or federal law, the city of Houston shall not provide employment benefits, including health care, to persons other than employees, their legal spouses and dependent children.”

Parker believes the language applies to any and all marriages even if not recognized in every state. Texas statutes still reflect the Defense of Marriage Act ethos of “one man and one woman.”

But Parker said same-sex marriages conducted in any jurisdiction where the act is legal, including foreign countries and more than a dozen states, will be recognized.

Parker’s “equality” argument, however, apparently does not accommodate polygamous marriages, which are recognized in some parts of the world.

“The amendment specifically permits benefits to be provided to legal spouses of employees,” Parker said. “I can only assume that it was contemplated that there would never be a time when same-sex couples were in legally sanctioned relationships.”

Parker said the Texas Defense of Marriage Act can be ignored.

Dave Welch, president of the U.S. Pastor’s Council, and also present at the hearing as a party to the suit, said the mayor’s actions bordered an anarchy.

“Mayor Parker has again shown that those who reject the existence of a moral law undergirding civil law have no reservations about running roughshod over such mundane items as state constitutions, city charters and the basic rule of law,” Welch said.

He said Parker’s “unilateral act of recognizing same-sex marriages from other states and extending employee benefits to those ‘spouses’ follows the same path of anarchy as her good friend Gavin Newsom, mayor of San Francisco who likewise defied state law.”

Jonathan Saenz, president and attorney for the non-profit advocacy group Texas Values, told WND that Parker’s actions were synonymous with “mob rule.”

“Mayor Parker’s self-serving efforts to force city staff to willfully violate the Texas Constitution is one of the most dangerous and egregious forms of a Washington-style power grab I have ever seen,” Saenz said. “She’s practically telling Gov. Perry, Attorney General Abbott and the people of Texas to ‘Come and Take It.’”

The court’s next hearing on the case is set Jan. 6.

Re-blogged from WND

City's lesbian mayor sparks 'anarchy' uproar
John Griffing
Thu, 19 Dec 2013 16:35:43 GMT


Post a Comment