Conroe, August 6 – On Friday, August 3, 2018, The Golden Hammer, Montgomery County’s leading daily newspaper, published an article “Gay rights activist Stittleburg runs as democrat for Montgomery County Judge.” The reaction to the article was intense.
Gay rights organizations shared The Golden Hammer‘s article on Facebook and elsewhere on social media, because the article purposefully didn’t criticize or render any sort of judgment with respect to Stittleburg being gay. Many local democrats were silent, but the usual anti-conservative partisans accused this newspaper’s Publisher of being “homophobic” and a “bigot.”
This newspaper has serious concerns about Stittleburg, but the concerns are not what the phony “SJWs” would impute to the Publisher. Here’s the issue and the contrast between Stittleburg and the Republican Nominee, State Representative Mark Keough.
Keough is an anti-spending, conservative, who is running as a Republican and openly discusses his support and belief in the Republican Party Platform. The Republican Party Platform specifically calls for a reduction in local government spending. Meanwhile, Stittleburg is running on the Texas Democratic Party Platform. Stittleburg attended the Senatorial District 4 Democratic Convention after the March 6 Primary Election. During that Convention, Stittleburg voted in favor of the entire Democratic Party Platform.
The problem with Stittleburg is that he’s a Texas democrat. In their Platform, the democrats:
- Support equal opportunities for all including illegal immigrants;
- Oppose the Trump administration’s “zero tolerance” policy towards illegal immigration;
- Want universal, taxpayer-mandated, healthcare for all, including illegal immigrants as well as all American citizens;
- Want to threaten criminal prosecutors with imprisonment and to impose California criminal and social justice laws on Texas;
- Demand that the government provide jobs for all, including health insurance and full employee benefits;
- Support the rights of labor unions while opposing corporations;
- Want an end to voter ID laws so anyone can vote;
- Seek more federal regulation of local school districts; and
- Support abortion on demand. They don’t even consider a fetus a life at all but merely “the product of a joined egg and sperm.”
Another problem with Stittleburg is that he’s convinced James Metts, who is the Republican nominee in East Montgomery County, to support him, because Stittleburg has assured Metts that Stittleburg supports tollroads, according to two individuals who work closely with Metts’ campaign who have requested anonymity.
Stittleburg’s support of tollroads and his unwillingness to condemn the TX 249 Tollway should be a deal killer as far as every Montgomery County voter.
On Stittleburg being gay
The Publisher of this newspaper enjoys going on walks with his wife. A couple of months ago, they were walking on a street named Majesty Row in The Woodlands where they walked past a man and a woman, approximately in their late 30s, standing up and making out intensely in the middle of the street in the middle of the day. Not only did the Publisher and his wife walk around them to avoid being near them but also they noticed that others avoided them as well. Quite frankly, it was really gross and it was a display that no one wanted to witness.
That’s the same issue with the so-called “gay rights” movement. There should not be discrimination against someone who is gay, mainly because what someone does in the privacy of their bedroom should be just that: private. This newspaper would have a problem with a “heterosexual rights” movement as well, if that movement involved efforts to bring sexual activity into the open view of others. “Heterosexual Pride” parades are just as inappropriate as “Gay Pride” parades. They’re not celebrating any sort of rights. Rather, they’re flaunting sexual activity.
That does happen to be another distinction between Stittleburg and his electoral opponent, Mark Keough. Keough, the Republican, doesn’t openly discuss or celebrate his sex life anywhere, while Stittleburg does.
The distinction has nothing to do with the actual sex. Rather, it’s whether we wish to live in a society where there is no privacy to bedroom activities, because they’re all public and in the open. While there may be a right to privacy (although such a constitutional right has severe historical limitations), there is no right to flaunt publicly your activity which should remain private.