Houston Texas has elected the first Lesbian Mayor

https://www.khou.com/news/Houston-Mayoral-candidates-Were-ready-79091657.html



The reason I am bringing this up is because even though she is capable of being a Mayor of the 4th largest City, why did she and the community have to make this about her sexuality. She was boasting about being the first lesbian elected. Why can't people just run for office based on their political career instead of having to "make" it about their personal life? Just wondering.

I dunno..
Why did everyone make such a big deal about Obama being the first black man elected to the presidency?

Perhaps it's because just a few years ago, such a thing would have been completely impossible, so some people see it as a progression toward equal rights and opportunities for everyone?

what he said lol

This

progression
1. the act of progressing; forward or onward movement.


Wouldn't the fact that Obama is in the white house and the fact that she is the Mayor of the 4th largest City mean the progression has been completed.
The progression or forward movement onward to the white house has been completed for Obama
same for the women mayor in Texas.

Of course Obama didn't run on a race card and doesn't boast about being the first man of color now that he's there.

Isn't it more like as they progressed towards their goals they broke though all the barriers to clear the path for others. Now their progress/ progression is complete .
So now anyone else that has set goals and the gumption to follow though to meet their goals need only to follow the trial they cleared ?
From now on it should be all about a person abilities not there skin color or there private lives

I'm not sure that she is the FIRST gay mayor of that city, the news said that she is the first OPENLY gay mayor of Houston.
What Iwannano said just about sums it up for me!

I say it has only just begun. Now we have had the first black man become President and Houston has had the first openly lesbian win an election, so what next?
The first gay President. The if he is white, the next would be a first black gay? Then what about the first Chinese American, The first Mexican American, the First, the First, the first. I am sick of all this s***.
Who cares if Obama is Black, who the hell cares if someone is gay. Elect them based on their effectiveness to govern.
I think this just sets back all so called minorities when they applaud winning based on their sexuality. Such a disgrace.

Houston did have a lesbian Mayor in the 70's, Kathy Whitmire. Everyone knew it, but she never "openly" used it to get elected. She was elected based on her knowledge. That's what I call a leader.

Theres a difference between someone being happy that they are the first previously oppressed group to be elected and them being elected because they come from that group.

Anyway, you ever seen the film Milk? Absolutely fantastic film, It actually makes you like Sean Penn, thats how good it is.

She was married to James M. (Jim) Whitmire. From Wiki.

I seriously doubt many people voted for her simply because she is a lesbian. Though I don't doubt many people voted against her for that reason.

This isn't about someone being voted in because they are part of a minority - in this case, one which is considered immoral, even a mental illness, by some primitive people - they are voted in despite being part of that group. Like other posters have said, this is an indicator of progress.

I might be wrong but I don't think any politician in America campaigns just on the policies and their political agenda. Most presidential campaigns I can remember have had other agendas of getting people to vote for them (or not vote for the other person). Religion would be the biggest I'd say.

Ha Ha Ha, a movie that makes you like Sean Penn. I liked that

The Montrose area of Houston held the core of Whitmire's political support in the late 1970s and early 1980s. In the 1991 Mayor of Houston election the sole area where the majority of residents voted for Whitmire was Montrose; she took 40% of the vote in Montrose precincts.[1][2


It was heavily rumored that she was lesbian after the death of her husband. The gay community ( Montrose area) fully supported her).
Now thats okay. She kept it to herself and it was nobodys business who her sexual partners were.

Is it any business who heterosexual politician's partners are? Should they keep that to themselves? They certainly don't seem to. They practically flaunt the fact that they are part of happy, heterosexual nuclear family units with an acceptable number of children. What's the difference between that and openly saying you are a lesbian?

If this woman walked around hand-in-hand with her female partner at election rallies you would cry "She's just using her sexuality to get votes!" So is it wrong for Obama to take his wife and children with him to rallies? Is he just using his sexuality?