Box Turtle Bulletin

Box Turtle BulletinNews, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
This article can be found at:
Latest Posts

San Antonio passes non-discrimination ordinance

Timothy Kincaid

September 5th, 2013

There’s nothing particularly controversial about the ordinance being considered today by the San Antonio City Council. It’s virtually identical to ordinances in hundreds of cities around the country – and around Texas.

But for some reason, conservative Republicans and anti-gay activists decided to make this vote their Alamo. So heavy hitters from U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz to the candidates vying for the Republican nomination for governor all put in their two cents about how bigotry should be a perfectly legal reason for San Antonio’s residents to fire and evict their gay neighbors.

And they lost. Badly. (StarTrib)

The 8-3 City Council vote in favor of the ordinance was a victory for gay rights advocates and for Democratic Mayor Julian Castro, a top surrogate of President Barack Obama. Castro has called the ordinance overdue in the nation’s seventh-largest city, where there is a stronger current of traditionalism and conservatism than other major Texas cities that already have similar gay rights protections.

It may well be that, like the Battle of the Alamo, conservatives are counting on shock and horror to propel a powerful backlash. I think they are seriously misunderstood the political climate. Even in Texas.

Comments

POST COMMENT | COMMENT RSS 2.0

TampaZeke
September 5th, 2013 | LINK

It’s really sad and shameful that two of the three no votes were from women of color.

markanthony
September 5th, 2013 | LINK

Any particular reason for the Alamo stand? It was all over the right wing blogs and I couldn’t figure out why.

TomTallis
September 5th, 2013 | LINK

They’re hoping for a victory, any victory; and they thought that SA, being in the south and fairly conservative would be the right place to take a stand. They were badly mistaken, and instead chalked up another loss in what has been a very bad year for them.

Chris McCoy
September 5th, 2013 | LINK

markanthony said

Any particular reason for the Alamo stand?

The Alamo is in San Antonio.

Chris McCoy
September 5th, 2013 | LINK

Here’s what local news sources are reporting.

Most noteworthy:

Because there were eight affirmative votes, the ordinance takes effect immdeiately.

TampaZeke
September 5th, 2013 | LINK

The Alamo would be a perfect metaphor for these homophobes and social conservatives since the Alamo’s real history wasn’t nearly as heroic or honorable as it’s been portrayed in Texas/American history books. There again, Texas has never been known for its high academic/history standards.

Timothy Kincaid
September 5th, 2013 | LINK

It’s possible that it’s even more of a loss for the anti-gays than at first glance.

Council members Elisa Chan, Ivy Taylor and Carlton Soules voted against adding LGBT protections. Chan and Soules voted against adding veteran status protections.

I don’t know Chan and Soules, but by voting against veterans status, it may be that their opposition comes from libertarian principles rather than anti-gay animus. (Most social conservatives are not anti-veteran). It may be that the anti-gays only ended up with a single council member voting based on animus.

tristram
September 6th, 2013 | LINK

Timothy – maybe you missed the whole Elisa Chan brouhaha in the run-up to this vote. Just google her name and you’ll find that she is not shy in proclaiming her ‘anti-gay animus.’

Timothy Kincaid
September 6th, 2013 | LINK

tristram,

Thanks! I had seen all that but I didn’t make the connection.

Such a lovely lady, isn’t she? And she seems to believe that if truly vile things are said in the privacy of her constituent-paid office with her constituent-paid staff, that it’s nobody’s business but her own.

In her case, I’m not sure if it’s that she hates veterans as well, or if she’s just so stupid that she hasn’t the faintest clue what she’s voting on.

Nathaniel
September 6th, 2013 | LINK

Even if she legitimately hates gays, it would be hard to defend her considering her anti-vet vote (no matter the reason). Her opponents will have a field day with her in her next election campaign.

Steve
September 7th, 2013 | LINK

Because some of those veterans are gay. Duh!

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.