Opposing a public official simply because he is gay? Come on guys, you gotta do better than that

It turns out that the man selected to be chief executive of Chicago's public school system is gay.

Pam's House Blend has an excellent breakdown of the article talking about him:

New Chicago Public Schools CEO Ron Huberman has now come out in a profile published in the Chicago Sun-Times. Here is some of the biography:

"Huberman was born in Israel to a family with Holocaust survivors on both sides. When he was 5, his family moved from Israel to Oak Ridge, Tenn., where his father, a scientist specializing in cancer research and cell mutation, took a research job. Seven years later, an offer at Argonne National Laboratories brought the family to La Grange.

At 15, while attending Lyons Township High School, Huberman made a declaration that, at first, was difficult for his parents to accept: He's gay.

"It's always difficult for kids. It was difficult for my parents at first. But they've become very accepting and very supportive," said Huberman, who lives with a partner who's a friend from college. They reconnected four years ago.

The question was inferred as to how long will it be before we will be hearing from the religious right ala phony gay expert Peter LaBarbera and phonier gay expert Laurie Higgins.

The answer is not long:

Chicago Public Schools New CEO Ron Huberman Openly Embraces Homosexual Immorality

I won't even try to recap this piece because the gist of it is short: LaBarbera and Higgins oppose Huberman simply because he is gay.

That's it.

No talk about Huberman breaking the law or engaging in impropriety of any kind. Just a lot of hypothetics backed up by the usual anti-gay nonsense (yadda yadda sexual deviancy, yadda yadda homosexuality being a dangerous lifestyle).

And it strikes me as sad. Someone's personal religious beliefs should have nothing to do with another person receiving a job. You believe homosexuality is a sin? Fine. But that is your belief and it shouldn't dictate whether someone is employed or not.

Huberman should be judged on his credentials, not his orientation. However in all fairness, I think his orientation is a plus. It's a tremendous psychological boost for lgbt children to know that he exists. He could be seen as a role model for a community of folks ( i.e. lgbt youth) who need to see some positive visibility.

But I doubt that his orientation was why he was hired. And it's not a good reason to oppose his hiring.

What's difference between opposing Huberman because he is gay and opposing him if he happened to be African-American?

Before you launch into some ridiculous argument about black people "not being to able to choose their skin color," how about if I put it a different way.

What is the difference between opposing Huberman because he is gay and opposing him because he is Jewish or Catholic, or even Southern Baptist? After all, isn't religion a choice?

There is no difference. All of these options are equally wrong.

Opposing the hiring of someone simply because they are gay is no different than opposing someone because of his/her race or religion.

And none of that sort of thinking should be allowed to dictate anything in this country.

(Forgive me if you think this piece is a bit simplistic, but sometimes you have to dismiss flowery prose and break things down to the basics.)

News briefs

Businessmen, lawyers and Church in challenge to gay adoption - Some ugly chicanery across the seas. I hate to see children caught in the middle of this. Hopefully it will work out.

Obama seeks assessment on gays in military - An outright executive order here would be disastrous, galvanizing the opposition and giving Elaine Donnelly some undeserved credibility. President Obama is doing the right thing by moving slow.

Steele: GOP should reach out to supporters of gay rights, abortion - I'll believe this when I see Matt Barber french kiss Micheangelo Signorile.

Bill would allow concealed guns in Arkansas churches - Perfect example of how Christianity is going down hill in this country. Who in their right mind would consider a law like this? My pastor would sit those lawmakers down and ask them where is their faith that God will protect them from all harm? Speaking of my church (yes I do attend church from time to time), we are having something quite opposite in which we encourage people to surrender their guns.