TulsaNow Questions the Candidates

[Gaspar]

The answer to question 7 was submitted separate than the rest of the survey responses, I believe that is why the wording is different.

Grizzle,
Do you mean that the question was provided to the candidate after the others, or that the candidate took additional time and consideration to submit a response?

If it was the latter, than perhaps my jest in assuming legal counsel was involved may actually be the case.

All of the other questions seem to be "Campaign" style questions that a politician can employ a great deal of creativity and BS in answering, however question #7 has significant political implications for the politician in the eyes of what he believes to be his constituency.  I am willing to bet that answer was carefully crafted by more heads than just that of the candidate.  Again, use of the third person gives him the ability to state a general position without offering a personal opinion or addressing the direct question.

Artist,
His answer is a typical crafted political statement that fails to answer the question.  That is the sad point.  It seems that Mr. Christiansen has clearly identified his constituency, and is being very cautious to align himself with them.

It is increasingly clear that I have no dog in this hunt.  The choice is between two poor candidates and a lackluster incumbent. 
All of their slogans should be Keep Tulsa The Same!

[heironymouspasparagus]

What does "Bill practices marriage from the biblical meaning" (guessing that he doesn't mean he got his wife, or wives by trading them for a camel and two chickens), have to do with extending benefits to same-sex partners?  I am happy, and do support, that he is able to get married as he wishes and is able to have that wonderful, beautiful relationship and that his wife and family would get "benefits" if he were a city employee... but again, not sure what he is saying here about extending benefits to sam-sex partners?

He is "non-answering" with as many weasle words as possible.  He knows that would be the kiss of death to his campaign here if he came out and said outright, yeah, he is for equal treatment!  I like what little I have seen about him, but that certainly puts a fine point on where his cowardice starts....and I also don't blame him for that here in Okrahoma.


(I just want someone from the anti-rights crowd to tell me why gays shouldn't be subject to the same 'self-abuse' of marriage, that the rest of us enjoy....?)

[Gaspar]

(I just want someone from the anti-rights crowd to tell me why gays shouldn't be subject to the same 'self-abuse' of marriage, that the rest of us enjoy....?)

That is an interesting point.  A gay couple can breakup and walk away, but a hetero couple faces years of court battle, attorneys, and paperwork.  Even an amicable divorce requires thousands of dollars of legal fees and document filing.

I think it would be far better to do away the the government's involvement in relationships all together.  These are contracts between individuals.  As for benefits and privacy laws, we stepped in that when we created the dependency on our employers to be our healthcare providers, and the government to be a paternal overseer, educator, and caregiver to our children.

The tangle is quite deep.

[RecycleMichael]

Back to the candidate answers...

I wonder the reason the Bartlett campaign didn't provide answers. Do they just think TulsaNow should be ignored? They would clearly respond if another media asked them questions. Do they not respect TulsaNow?

[Townsend]

Back to the candidate answers...

I wonder the reason the Bartlett campaign didn't provide answers. Do they just think TulsaNow should be ignored? They would clearly respond if another media asked them questions. Do they not respect TulsaNow?

There's a possibility that someone on his campaign has taken a gander at TulsaNow and came to the conclusion that there was no way Bartlett would get a fair shake on here.

Just a guess.

I know I've been less than positive in my posts about his job on here.

[sgrizzle]

Grizzle,
Do you mean that the question was provided to the candidate after the others, or that the candidate took additional time and consideration to submit a response?

They submitted their responses with the question unanswered. The answer was later provided after his campaign was asked to fill in that particular blank.

[heironymouspasparagus]

What does "Bill practices marriage from the biblical meaning" (guessing that he doesn't mean he got his wife, or wives by trading them for a camel and two chickens), have to do with extending benefits to same-sex partners?  I am happy, and do support, that he is able to get married as he wishes and is able to have that wonderful, beautiful relationship and that his wife and family would get "benefits" if he were a city employee... but again, not sure what he is saying here about extending benefits to sam-sex partners?

Have often wondered what is that supposed to mean - the "biblical meaning" ??  The only real discussions I have seen center around "wives" rather than "wife"....and that is Old Testament.  The current monogamist culture we enjoy had it's roots in ancient Greece and pagan Rome around 2 thousand years ago.  How is that biblical?