Controversy Over Gay Ordinance In San Antonio Grows - Are we Followers or just Fans of Christ?

David Ewell speaks about the recording of District 9 City Councilwoman Elisa Chan's comments on homosexuality during the Community Alliance for a United San Antonio event at City Hall in San Antonio on Friday, August 16, 2013. Ewell and his partner of 30 years adopted a six-month-old boy from Cambodia who is now 12-years-old.

Archbishop Gustavo Garcia-Siller voiced his opinion this weekend on the proposed non-discrimination ordinance, leaving the liberals in San Antonio raging and fighting for their rainbow colors.

Archbishop Garcia-Siller’s announcement was released online Friday and his ‘Another View’ was printed in the Express n News newspaper on Sunday, two days after the online release. He hit a nerve. The Liberals were prepared and came out spinning. I am of the opinion that they might have known this would happen because instead of attacking the Archbishop, which they know would be suicide, they chose their victim carefully. The target was Council woman Elisa Chan of District 9, supposedly the ‘most’ conservative district in San Antonio. According to the Express n News, one of Chan’s aides, James Stevens, recorded her during one of their meetings in May without her knowledge. Chan revealed in the recording what she thought about the ordinance.

“By the way, this is politically incorrect,” she tells her aides. “I don't think homosexual people should do adoption. They should be banned by adoption. You're going to confuse those kids. They should be banned.”

“If you wanted to choose that lifestyle, we don't want to discriminate you, but you shouldn't affect the young people,” she continues. “How terrible. ... They're going to be confused. You see two men go into a bedroom. You see two women kissing. Is that not confusing? It's confusing.

“It is actually, what you call, suggestive, for the kids to be corrupt, which is against nature. I'm telling you, anything that is against nature is not right.”

An aide ‘outing’ his employer for comments made in a staff meeting is totally unacceptable, since all of us are entitled to our own opinion. Stevens then turned the recording over to Brian Chasnoff, one of the most liberal spin king’s in journalistic history in San Antonio that I can remember.

Stevens to Chasnoff: “My decision to record in the first place was that, during the staff meetings, we weren't really discussing the ordinance itself, we were really just talking about ways to appeal to the (voting) base and to get them fired up as opposed to analyzing the ordinance.”

But Chasnoff is not the only attack dog writing about the ‘incident’. So is Gilbert Garcia who in the past has written his articles with ‘reasoned opinions’, until now. Calling Chan ‘homophobic’ says it all; he has shown his dark side. Calling the Archbishop ‘homophobic’ would also be unacceptable. The Catholic Church does not condone same sex marriage adoptions. These so-called journalists are just plain bullies, and we should see right through their ridiculous bullying tantrums.

The Archbishop said the right words, but will they be sufficient to stop the ordinance? It takes hundreds of calls per day to stop something like this even if the LBGT community is in the minority. Remember we are living in the time of Obama where evil prevails.

Are we left to choose law or faith?

The Archdiocese of San Antonio does not oppose the spirit of this ordinance, but we feel that it is incomplete as it stands.

In our catechism, the Catholic Church teaches that persons experiencing a homosexual inclination “must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.” (CCC No. 2358).

The church's teaching is also clear that sexual activity outside of marriage is immoral. Individuals engaging in sexual conduct outside of the legitimate marriage of a man and a woman are not living lives consistent with Catholic teaching or the natural law. The First Amendment of the Constitution guarantees us the right to publicly teach, preach and live these fundamental principles.

The development of laws or policies promoting and enhancing the dignity of the human person is a noble goal, one worthy of a just society. However, society must also avoid establishing civil laws and policies conflicting with natural moral law, destabilizing the family, or infringing on human and constitutional rights.

The proposed expansion of the city's “nondiscrimination policy” raises still serious concerns regarding infringements on our First Amendment rights.

People of faith should not become a target for legal action for expressing deeply held beliefs on human sexuality, marriage and chastity. In our dialogue with city officials, we have asked only that this protection be included with explicit language.

Addressing the question of employment in the so-called “religious exemption,” the proposed policy expansion claims that a “religious corporation” does not violate the nondiscrimination policy by limiting employment or giving a preference in employment to members of the same religion.

However, it is silent concerning how one decides the religious status of the individual, and it ignores the question of behaviors inconsistent with the teachings of the faith. In our discussions with city officials, we have been told that these guarantees are implied in the ordinance. We continue to ask that this be explicitly and clearly written into the ordinance.

Beyond institutional challenges to the church, we are concerned by intrusions on the right of conscience for individuals, especially in the area of public accommodation. It is not the province of civil government to interfere with the rights of conscience in the exercise of a person's faith.

It appears that this policy could force individuals who supply goods and services to the general public to provide them to individuals or organizations involved in activities that are in conflict with the providers' moral values and right of conscience. People should not have to choose between obeying the teachings of their faith and the law. We appreciate the willingness of city officials to engage in civil dialogue on this important issue.

Through dialogue with Councilman Diego Bernal, City Attorney Michael Bernard and other city elected officials, the Archdiocese of San Antonio and other members of the faith community have affected the current draft positively.

However, we ask the mayor and the City Council to continue to listen to people of good will as they voice remaining important concerns over this proposed ordinance.

This past Sunday our parish priest spoke on the gospel of Luke 12:49-53. How often have we heard this verse explained during the homily? This time it hit home.

I have come to set the earth on fire, and how I wish it were already blazing! There is a baptism with which I must be baptized, and how great is my anguish until it is accomplished! Do you think that I have come to establish peace on the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division. From now on a household of five will be divided, three against two and two against three…

The priest continued and asked “Are you a follower of Christ or are you just a fan?” As Christians we must stand strong in the teachings of Christ and should not only be willing to follow Him to the cross but to actually be ‘crucified’ with Him. We must stand strong against those who will lead us down a path not in keeping with Christ’s teachings even if it is a family member.

This non-discrimination ordinance, if passed, will lie in wait for just the right time as did the recording of Chan, to further the destruction of our family values. Take time to contact your SA council person and voice your opinion on this unnecessary ordinance. The vote is coming soon.


Elisa Chan's taped remarks spark a wide reaction

Elisa Chan reveals homophobic views in secret recording
By Brian Chasnoff : August 15, 2013 : Updated: August 16, 2013 5:36pm

“So disgusting!”

Chan anti-gay recording reveals undiluted ignorance


© 2015 TexasGOPVote  | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy