Gender and sexual orientation issues are at the heart of many current public policy battles affecting the family in the United States and throughout the world. Sexual orientation is the current term used to refer to homosexual, bisexual, and transgender activities and their advocacy. Liberal orthodoxy requires an acknowledgement, acceptance, and embrace of all forms of sexual orientation. This embrace is referred to as tolerance. Tolerance toward sexual orientation requires the elevation of dangerous sexual practices to a place equal to traditional monogamous heterosexual norms.
United Families International believes that gender confusion has a devastating effect on individuals and their ability to lead healthy, productive lives and to form stable nuclear families. In order to stem the tide of homosexual activism, to thwart the attempts to redefine marriage in an effort to reestablish society based on alternative family forms, and to preserve and protect marriage and the family, United Families International presents a
Guide to Family Issues: Sexual Orientation.
This document continues through 42 pages to describe gays and lesbians as inferior, degenerate, unstable pedophiles. This isn’t just about marriage, this is bigotry. It is impossible to replace this minority group with any other, (Jew, Black, Hispanic, Brazilian, women) in this document and not find these statements to be terribly offensive.
If it can be determined that Ms Busse is indeed the same Ms Busse who was involved in distributing this document, should we separate a candidates views from their ability to serve in a capacity that is not affected? Does it affect their ability to perform on the Planning Board or any other Board if they are predjudiced against a segment of our town? Is the town sanctioning or elevating these prejudices through a political appointment? Or is as was originally stated, is it wrong to judge a candidate by the views they hold.
Below is a quote from Ms Busse’s blog:
http://www.citizenatlarge.type…
Yes, it’s always, “let’s get back to the real issues”-like healthcare, the economy, the war in Iraq, and so on. While I do not quarrel with the gravity of these issues, I cannot understand why personal issues are not relevant, why in fact these are not the relevant points of information, particularly in the prolonged Democratic campaign where the two candidates have remarkably similar positions on many of the major issues.
And then as a way to make certain individuals acceptable as political candidates, we are told that a candidate’s personal life should have nothing to do with his/her ability to govern. But the way a person has behaved in his/her family, business affairs, and community is exactly what has built their character. Examining a candidate’s political as well as personal behavior should be fair game, not for entertainment value, but for serious consideration as we look to the future….Thus although candidates may urge us to simply “focus on the issues,” we also must discern which of the latest-revealed details of a candidates’ life merit serious consideration and which simply reflect harmless personal foibles, accidental missteps or past misdeeds for which apologies have been issued and from which characters have changed for the better. A daunting task, to be sure, but important nonetheless, to our being effective participants in a democracy.
A few city council elections ago, before I really understood local politics, I was very impressed with a Certain Someone at the debates. Certain Someone spoke very intelligently, had a good command of the issues. It seemed to me C.S. would make a great addition to the council. Later I learned that C.S. was a Pat Buchanan-supporter. I was horrified. My first, partisan thought was, “We can’t give C.S. a bigger platform. C.S. might become mayor, or governor!” Expressing this thought (more diplomatically, to be sure) on a local forum met with mixed reviews.
<
p>Later, I found that there were local issues, particularly related to transportation and the environment on which Certain Someone has been somewhat of an, er, obstacle. As a city councilor, C.S. would have been worse.
<
p>So maybe my possibly petty partisan reaction was not misplaced after all.
<
p>Acton, take care!
Yes, one time I thought I was wrong, but it turned out I was right.
<
p>Great argument there KBusch. Monthy Python used it successfully in The Holy Grail to drown witches.
The Witch: I’m not a witch I’m not a witch!
Sir Bedevere: But you are dressed as one
The Witch: They dressed me up like this!
Crowd: We didn’t! We didn’t…
The Witch: And this isn’t my nose. It’s a false one.
Sir Bedevere: [lifts up her false nose] Well?
Peasant 1: Well, we did do the nose.
Sir Bedevere: The nose?
Peasant 1: And the hat, but she is a witch!
Crowd: Yeah! Burn her! Burn her!
Sir Bedevere: Did you dress her up like this?
Peasant 1: No!
Peasant 3, Peasant 2: No!
Peasant 3: No!
Peasant 1: No!
Peasant 3, Peasant 2: No!
Peasant 1: Yes!
Peasant 2: Yes!
Peasant 1: Yeah a bit.
Peasant 3: A bit!
Peasant 1, Peasant 2: A bit!
Peasant 2: a bit
Peasant 1: But she has got a wart!
Random Person in the crowd: cough cough
I meant exactly the words I wrote, no more and no less. “Maybe” was intentional.
<
p>The argument you’re mocking is one I did not make.
I’m actually the Acton Selectman that “held” the consent item to appoint Ms Busse. I was concerned and am still concerned about appointing, to a permit granting authority, someone that takes strong action against a group of people that have been awarded equal rights under the law.
<
p>When asking people if I should be concerned, I had been told by a couple of people, “what does someone’s views about gay marriage have to do with the Planning Board”. Then another person said, “it would be like appointing David Duke to the Planning Board…I mean what does his views about black people have to do with building permits?”. An extreme view perhaps, but it gave me pause.
<
p>I admire a lot what Ms Busse writes about…slowing down in life, for example. But a good part of what she writes about is how effective it can be to change the world by starting out in local politics. If that’s the case, and she’s taking such a big role in anti-gay marriage action, then isn’t that a red flag?
<
p>But now I another issue since I reviewed the tape of the meeting. She said that she is not involved in a “foundation” that is taking action against gay marriage. I looked up UFI and it’s pretty clear that they are promting the marriage definition, “one man, one woman”. So I’m wondering whether she didn’t mislead us.
<
p>Now I don’t know what to do! Now honesty seems to be an issue. Do I point out that there was an apparent inaccuracy in her statement? Look for clarification?
<
p>Or do I just put it behind me and learn from the situation; that I should bring better specifics. Learn that someone being questioned may try to sidestep the issue. I had assumed, seemingly wrongly, that if she is working against gay marriage that she would be proud to speak her views.
<
p>What’s fascinating is that UFI’s site seems to careful to avoid the word “gay”.
<
p>It’s all so odd…
<
p>Terra
In my frame of reference it sounds like they are bent on attacking marriage and dividing families.
<
p>As for this particular issue, I would like to think that any discrimination a Planning Board member might have the authority to pursue is already illegal. You also risk her claiming martyrdom if it seems she was denied an opportunity to serve on this basis. My inclination would be to seat her assuming she is otherwise qualified.
Seems to me Ms. Busse has answered her own question.
<
p>
There’s a difference between a candidate for elected office and a candidate for an appointed position to a board. One, representing the people; the other, performing a task at the pleasure of and in accordance with rules set by the appointing body.
First of all, Ms. Margaret (Mary) Woolley Busse appears to be a babe. Which is at least as relevant or irrelevant to Planning Board matters as her stance on gay marriage.
<
p>Second, she appears from her first blog entry, to be fiscally conservative. An excellent addition to any town board, IMHO.
<
p>Third, because i) she writes a bit on her blog, following November elections, with respect to the Prop 8 vote in California and ii) she contributed in a large way to Mr. Romney, and iii) her blog has some other circumstantial statements got me thinking, I bet she’s a Mormon, which as you know, teaches that traditional marriage is an institution ordained by God and that homosexual sex is a sin.
<
p>So, given those first 2 facts, and the third a circumstantial high probability, would you think it appropriate to compel a candidate for a Board (an appointee now to be clear; we’re not talking an elected position) to discuss their religious beliefs.
<
p>Me, I’d pass.
<
p>Or, given that they were a follower of a religion that believed in something that you strongly did not, say abortion, would you tell them they weren’t qualified to rule on a setback, varience or special permit, because you ‘believed’ them to be a bigot or murderer.
<
p>Again. Pass.
to perform the tasks. The question is does she have the disposition. Similar perhaps to what they are discussing today as to Judge Sotomayor.
<
p>The question here is not whether her religious beliefs on marriage disqualify her, it is whether it permissible for her to describe my fellow citizens as unstable, dangerous, unhealthy, belligerent, irresponsible and dysfunctional and then be given a position to exercise authority impartially over all the residents of our community.
<
p>Again, I have worked on opposing sides of Republicans on national issues and worked side by side with them on local issues. It would be wrong to use political affiliation as grounds for local political appointments. Oppression of a minority group is not a political view. Was George Wallace’s stance on segregation a political view?
but if you said that to me, I would think you have a lot of explaining to do to justify her being unstable, dangerous, unhealthy, belligerent, irresponsible and dysfunctional as opposed to a Mormon. Unless of course that’s what you think of Mormons. If so, you should also share that with the citizens you are describing Ms. Busse to.
Let’s lay out some logic.
<
p>* Not all Republicans/Prop 8 supporters/babes are Mormons.
* Not all Mormons believe every tenant of their faith.
* Margaret Mary Quite Contrairy, through literature, called an entire class of people unstable, dangerous, et al.
* Sue Kennedy reported on Margaret Mary QC’s application.
<
p>Therefore, Sue Kennedy called MMQC unstable et al and/or thinks that way of all Mormons?
<
p>Give me a logical break, wouldja?
I’m sure the town has its share of unstable, dangerous, unhealthy, belligerent, irresponsible and dysfunctional people, and an appointee who is professional in his or her service could represent them as well as the 2 or 3 townspeople who don’t fit within one of those descriptions.
Could the individual fairly perform the duties of the position, without discriminating against GLBT people she might encounter in her official capacity? If the answer is no, then she should not be appointed.
As a member of the planning board, will this person discriminate against GLBT people, or anyone for that matter. Thanks Bean.
As a member of the planning board, will this person have the opportunity/occasion to implement said bigotry?
Probably the only legitimate reason to consider her to be qualified. (anti-Palin remarks not necessary here)
a glamor shot to me.
And here I thought Acton was in Massachusetts. It’s in Laputa!
Only you seem to be about making it an issue of religion.
I try to avoid voting for bigots – and I’m sorry, but any overt, excited supporters of Prop 8 are bigoted, at least at some level – and that includes people who made donations.
<
p>I’d also lean against voting for super, super conservatives for any municipal election where those conservative views can get in the way. IE, it’s harder to get an override on the ballot if a bunch of super conservatives are on the Board of Selectman, who don’t want that override on the ballot. Then you have to get a super majority at (our) Town Meeting to get the override onto the warrant, at which point a simple majority can decide whether to actually put it on the ballot.
<
p>This actually just happened at our last town meeting, when the town selectman tried to stop town meeting from voting on a proposal to consider whether or not to create a police building cmt. They rejected it at at their meeting before the warrant was created, and it required some quick signatures and a 2/3rds vote at town meeting (which was won… because people know we need a new police station desperately.) They almost got booted from being able to put anyone on that committee (as usual) as punishment, save for a very close, last-second amendment.
I’d make sure that someone like this person didn’t get nominated, never mind appointed.
<
p>In my town, the select board is the appointing body. The town administrator recommends appointees, and we affirm them, though any of us can suggest appointees.
<
p>As a selectman, it’s my job to make sure that politically questionable people (or incompetent ones) don’t get that far in the process.
It depends on the issue. In my local political career I was on a committee that made appts to the FinCom, I was always concerned about a candidate that would be fair and would not have any agendas. I was reluctant to appoint pro-school candidates, but supported candidates that had kids in the schools. I voted against a candidate who goal in life was to shut down our town public library. I have voted for republicans, democrats, and unenrolled members. As long as I thought that they would be fair.
<
p>If I thought they would act seriously and fairly as a member of the FinCom I could care less if they were gay, pro-marriage, or pro Iraq war, Catholic, Jew, Muslim, or atheist.
If that’s the case you could probably not even bother asking for my vote if you were running in my town. I’d be looking elsewhere for someone to support.
Some individuals would promote school interest to the detriment of other town depts. That’s a bias. On the reverse side I have discouraged anti-school candidates from applying as they are biased as well. Try to appoin individuals that will be fair and don’t have agendas.
I for one definitely have a pro-school bias and see helping the schools as helping everyone. I’ve never liked the idea of town departments operating as fiefdoms and complaining about what “we” got versus what “they” got. I’m more of the we’re-all-in-this-together school wherein the entire town constitutes the “we”.
I just had a battle with our FinCom over requiring an override to fund a feasibility study regarding possible school renovations. (We could have paid out of a stabilization fund expressly for that purpose).
<
p>I wasn’t on the select board when it agreed to put the article on the warrant allowing town meeting to send funding the feasibility study to an override. But after a lot of thought, I realized the FinCom had gone beyond its role as fiscal advisor and had decided how the town would decide to pay for something.
<
p>The problem seemed to stem in part from communication difficulties with the school people and one strong committee member who has an irrational hatred for the schools. When that member’s appointment is up, I’ll give it serious thought and probably a no vote, which in town politics means not appointing the next door neighbor of my youth.
<
p>As the appointing authority, however, I’ll do what I think is best for the town. The FinCom doesn’t have to be pro-school, but I don’t want it to be anti-school either. Bear in mind that in my town we spend close to the mandatory minimum contribution.
<
p>Appointees are like employees. They’re easier to deal with if you don’t screw up in the beginning (though in this case, I wasn’t there in the beginning).
If so, simply thank her for her application and choose a different candidate who is qualified.
<
p>If there is not another qualified candidate, get out there and shake the trees until you find one willing to apply.
<
p>Problem solved, no?
First, would I be right in assuming that Planning Board is normally an elected position and Ms. Busse is asking to serve in an interim capacity until the next election? That’s how it’s done in most towns. If she does a lousy job, it can be corrected in a few months.
<
p>Personally, I’m having a hard time seeing how her position on marriage issues is relevant to a seat on the planning board.
I’d likely be more uncomfortable if she was looking to serve on the School Committee, where she might have more opportunities to push her agenda.
In fact in Amherst I think they are appointed by the Town Manager rather than by the Select Board, though the latter probably has final approval. We just had a story in the local paper where some planning board members were not going to be reappointed because of poor attendance at meetings.
<
p>IIRC, the planning board in neighboring, smaller, Hadley is elected.
<
p>It may be a stretch for views on gay marriage to be relevant to the planning board’s work, but Ms. Wooley Busse appears to be a fanatic conservative on economic issues as well and I wouldn’t want her making any decisions for my town.
There is a Cambridge School Committee member who is a George Bush voting, Iraq War supporting, member of the Republican Party (gasp!).
<
p>But he is also probably the most reasoned and experienced member on that committee and has done a tremendous job getting resources for our high school, saving vocational education in Cambridge, and setting up a new high school that serves kids that dropped out of our mainstream high school to give them a second chance. All great stuff and replacing him with someone who DID share my views on national issues would do a disservice to the committee. Also while I was a student school committee member it was great to spar with him on issues we disagreed with, I changed his mind about Coming Out Day and he changed my mind about allowing military recruiters on campus. That kind of dialogue is constructive.
<
p>In this instance, she is prohibited by state law from interfering with a gay persons right to marry, thus she does not threaten anyone with her anti-marriage views. If she is openly homophobic and discriminatory, which I see little evidence that she would or even could be in this capacity, than voting against her is itself an act of bigotry preventing an otherwise qualified individual from working hard for your community.
<
p>Would it be right for a town, say in a Red State, to stop a liberal who does good work from working there just because of their political opinions? I don’t think so.
In Truro, a town fire official was booted because he signed the Know-thy-Neighbor petition – because he wanted a vote on the issue.
<
p>This a link to Democratic Underground about the circumstaqnces – the Cape Cod Times story is archived. (I chose this link, because others are WAAAYYY upset, and this at least has a story quote).
<
p>My recollection is that during the questioning, Asher-Best observed that Mr. Childs might not rescue gay people, or treat their problems seriously. Mr. Childs had served for five years.
Hey, if someone wants to sign a petition against gay, Jewish or interracial marriage that’s their right. Not attractive, but hey, it’s a free country.
<
p>Isn’t it different to hand out literature that argues that Republican neighbors are unstable, dangerous, unhealthy, belligerent, irresponsible and dysfunctional. They also have a “free speech” right to do this, but it certainly indicates this is hate, not a policy position.
<
p>If your argument requires you to vilify, exclude and cast suspicion on opponents, you have some weakness in your position.
<
p>The question is should an individual who has hatred for their neighbors be in a position of authority?
A slightly similar experience where I live. The current chairman of the school committee is a long-time member of the Republican Committee in town. However, her less-than conservative views on school spending, especially on big projects like a new High School, earned her the wrath of more conservative Republicans.
He is probably the most pro-labor pro-teachers union member of the entire committee and he is pro-school spending. He also was voted out in 2001 and re-elected in 2003 so maybe he moderated to get back on the board. I believe his brother had been on the committee as a democrat.
I’ve never seen a town (cities are a different matter) with an appointed Planning Board on the South Shore.