Culturemap covers first H-Town mayoral debate

It was a Q&A forum on the arts, affording little opportunity for scrapping among the seven, but Clifford Pugh provides the details anyway for those of us who track these items.

Twenty minutes into the first gathering of all seven candidates for Houston mayor on the same stage, former congressman Chris Bell noted an audience member stifling a yawn.

"It could be a lot worse. This could be a Republican presidential debate," he said, where as many as 20 candidates are expected on stage in a few months.

Bell always demonstrates the best sense of humor.  And why is Bill King so sour all the time?

While much of the evening was taken up with policy wonk questions about a cap on the Houston Hotel Occupancy Tax (aka the HOT tax), which funds arts projects around the city, the best — and most humanizing question — came from an audience member, who asked, "Who is your favorite artist and why?" You could almost see the wheels turning in each candidate's head as he scrambled to come up with an unscripted answer.

First up was former Kemah mayor Bill King, who lamely listed Van Gogh, whom he first learned about from his history teacher many years ago. Businessman Marty McVey picked the 13th century poet Rumi for the "great solace" his work provides, which drew the applause of one audience member.

State Rep. Sylvester Turner was the first to turn the discussion to Houston artists — John Biggers and Michelle Barnes are among his favorites, and the other candidates quickly followed his lead, with Bell listing Lamar Briggs, Houston City Council member Stephen Costello mentioning Mark Foyle, muralist Ashley Wren and Justin Garcia, and former sheriff Adrian Garcia picking his daughter along with Project Row Houses founder Rick Lowe.

Attorney Ben Hall had the most unconventional answer  — he's mad about Surrealists M.C. Esher and Salvatore (sic) Dali. "Read into that what you may," he said cryptically.

The man's name is Salvador, Clifford (or Pastor Hall, as the case may be).  Escher's name is also misspelled, despite the link to it, so we'll put both of those mistakes on Pugh and his editor, unless Hall actually pronounced it "Sal-vah-tore-ay".  Pugh still should have known better; Hall probably not.  (My guess is his disgust for Dali's nudes stopped him from learning the artist's name, if in fact he doesn't know it).  It's so easy to cull the field of prospective mayors by asking them a question that they didn't anticipate, isn't it?

Update: Those in attendance -- see comments -- report that Hall is a fan of Dali, with the phrase "mad about" in the article meaning good and not bad.  I got the wrong impression (pun intended).

The other two debates -- err, forums -- this week will be more policy-substantive, I predict.  I plan on being present for both of them.  No telling what unscripted moment may occur and reveal.

Waiting for the decision on marriage equality

One of the most immediate and impactful decisions affecting the lives of Americans -- besides the ruling on Obamacare subsidies, of course --  will be the SCOTUS's call on gay marriage, due before the end of this month.  (The Fifth Circuit is also deliberating the question and may announce its decision prior to the Supreme Court's.  It won't have the final say, of course.)  Gatherings are planned around Texas to celebrate anticipated good news; Katie Couric recently interviewed one of the lead plaintiffs, Jeff Obergefell.

His case, Obergefell v. Hodges, rests on two questions. One is whether  the Constitution requires a state where same-sex marriage is not legal to recognize a marriage licensed in a state where it is legal. The other question is whether the Constitution requires states to license marriages between two people of the same sex — in other words, whether same-sex marriage should be legal nationwide.

The case will likely stand in the history of legal annals alongside iconic civil rights cases like Brown v. Board of Education and Roe v. Wade.

SCOTUSblog’s Kevin Russell says if the court rules in favor of the legality of same-sex marriages on both of the questions that Obergefell v. Hodges asks, the implications could extend far beyond marriage. 

 “This could be a decision that says that it is generally unconstitutional to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation in every sphere,” says Russell. “And if the Supreme Court holds that, then this will be a huge case. It'll be the ‘Brown v. Board of Education’ for sexual orientation. It will mean that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, at least by states and by the federal government, is unconstitutional across the board.”

Obergefell’s case, however, also poses an unlikely danger to proponents of same-sex marriage. Currently, 37 states and Washington, D.C., have legalized same-sex marriage. However, in 21 of those states, it is only legal because courts ruled state bans unconstitutional. If the Supreme Court rules against him, and additionally goes so far as to say that the Constitution does not protect marriage at all, those rulings could be in jeopardy.

Experts say that outcome is largely unexpected, but they concede that this scenario could be a major setback for gay couples. Same-sex couples who are now legally married in 21 states could suddenly lose their legal status. As Russell says, “It would be a huge mess.”  

That fear is not lost on Obergefell, who says he “absolutely” shares that concern. “I think there would be a certain level of pandemonium in the country. I mean, how could there not be, because suddenly, again, you're creating this second class of citizens.”

And so we wait (hopefully to celebrate).  Update: Charles has more on the preparations being made at various Texas county courthouses.