published Wednesday, February 12th, 2014

Chris Anderson and the future of the NFL

Chris Anderson was gay when he ran for Chattanooga city councilman, and he's still gay today.

If residents of District 7 didn't like that about him then, and that's their right, they should have voted for someone else.

Anderson said publicly as early as September 2012, before the campaign in early 2013, that he is gay, although he said he's been open about his sexual preference for years.

Now, residents of his district want to recall him because of what they say is his job performance. Many didn't like his introduction of the idea of benefits for domestic partners of city employees -- and there are legitimate reasons for that dislike -- but that doesn't rise to the need of a recall.

Other residents say Anderson is not representing their interests well, and that's a gripe to which he should pay attention, but it's not one worthy of a recall.

He has been in office for less than a year, after all.

But if the recall petition has been filed properly when the Hamilton County Election Commission reviews it Thursday, that body will have little choice but to let the drive advance to the signature stage.

The filers will then have 75 days to collect the proper number of signatures -- 15 percent of registered voters in the district, about 1,800 -- to get the recall on an upcoming ballot.

With an up or down vote, Anderson could disappear like that. Poof!

Is that how vulnerable our elected officials should be? Certainly, they should be answerable to the public that elected them, but should one issue be the broom that sweeps them away?

What if residents don't like District 1 Councilman Chip Henderson's vote, should there be one, involving the Hillocks Farm development along Highway 153 in Hixson? How about if Missionary Ridge residents take exception to a vote by District 9 Councilman Yusuf Hakeem that seems to favor his constituents living anywhere but the Ridge?

Short of perpetrating illegal activities, elected officials should at least get the benefit of their term in office to make their case. If, at the end of that term, the balance weighs against them, voters can -- and should -- exercise their right to elect another person.

What's being done to Anderson is all legal and above board, but that doesn't make it right.

His attorney, Stuart James, in a letter to the Election Commission, says something's afoot, and it sounds a lot like discrimination.

In the letter, he says the recall petition is unconstitutional because it uses state mechanisms to achieve a discriminatory purpose. In other words, James said in a phone conversation Tuesday, if the real motivation behind the petition to a government entity -- the Election Commission -- is because Anderson is gay, that's illegal.

The petition, he said, "doesn't give a reason" for Anderson's removal. But, he said, "gays are a protected class now. They can't be discriminated against."

Citing in the letter inflammatory comments by residents about what they perceive as the councilman's agenda to boost homosexuality, James likened the recall petition to the recall of black elected officials elsewhere in the 1960s because of their skin color.

The letter also cited that the petition mentioned the organization Citizens for Government Accountability and Transparency as an entity to contact or email completed petitions when, in fact, the CGAT had not given permission for such contact.

"I knew when I ran for public office that I would have to make decisions that were politically difficult," Anderson said in an email to Times Free Press reporter Joy Lukachick for a story last month. "If [voters] want to recall me over the equal rights of the public servants that work so hard for the City of Chattanooga, bring it on."

One wonders if this is what University of Missouri defensive lineman Michael Sam will face in the NFL next year. The All-American, who is expected to be a high-round draft choice in the NFL draft in May, said in an interview with ESPN's "Outside the Lines" on Sunday that he is gay.

"I understand how big this is," he said. "It's a big deal. No one has done this before. And it's kind of a nervous process, but I know what I want to be ... I want to be a football player in the NFL."

Don't like that he's gay? Fine. But, until he proves he can't do his job, let him try.

Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
aae1049 said...

The right of voters to recall elected officials exists in Tennessee Code Annotated and the municipal charter of the city of Chattanooga. Bottom line, the voters of District 7 have a legal right to recall.

Whether you agree with the voters in District 7's motive or not is of no consequence. They still have a right to remove Chris Anderson through recall procedures.

All Councilman Chris Anderson has done since being elected is promoted his own personal gay agenda legislation over the real and tangible needs of his district. That is a call for the voters of District 7 and no one else.

Perhaps you should be on the left side of the newspaper. Unless of course, you believe that the conservatives of this city would support Chris Anderson who fancies himself as a Dem operator.

Finally, Chris Anderson did not win by a landslide as they claim. a few hundred votes is not huge, and there is more interest in recalling Anderson. Count me in.


February 12, 2014 at 7:55 a.m.
cooljb said...

Ok, they elected him despite his being gay. So you can eliminate that as the reason for a recall. The main agenda he is pushing looks nothing like what he ran on, that is the reason for the recall. Another thing, the writer of this story, or Anderson's attorney either, don't set the bar for why or if a recall is in order, the voters do. So, again, everyone knew he was gay and in a long term relationship when he was elected, anyway. This is not a gay or straight issue, it is a fiscal, tax payer and voter issue, please try to understand, that or else he would have never been elected in the first place. Good grief.

February 12, 2014 at 8:01 a.m.
SaraB said...

As a female working to excel in my profession in a decent-sized corporate environment, I can't imagine hiding behind my "status" as a "protected class" as a female. The company with which I work is 90% men.

Chris Anderson has clearly been busy do anything but listening to his constituents. It's disgusting that he decided to take up issues that weren't priorities in his own community, now he's accusing them of prejudice because of his own actions.

It's getting old. Either accept responsibility for your stance on issues, Mr. Anderson or just admit that anytime you make a mistake, you're going to cry discrimination.

February 12, 2014 at 8:55 a.m.
GaussianInteger said...

Alton Park has been a dangerous part of town for decades now. Why was there no attempted recall of Manny Rico or the councilmen before Anderson was elected?

And of course April Eidson we know you support the recall. Everyone is aware of where you get your marching orders and I think you may be a bit depressed about not seeing your name in the news lately.

February 12, 2014 at 9:09 a.m.
sagoyewatha said...

Clearly, councilperson Anderson has not done one thing to combat violence in his district. He has ruined the bluff view art district through homosexual colonization, caused the union problem at VW, and is responsible for the current snow storm. He should be recalled before he does more harm.

February 12, 2014 at 9:42 a.m.
conservative said...

Hmm,"homosexual colon-nization"


February 12, 2014 at 9:58 a.m.
LibDem said...

sagoyewatha, Please don't get conservative aroused.

February 12, 2014 at 10:16 a.m.
aae1049 said...

Guass, There was an attempt to recall Manny Rico. Ask him. Also, how sexist for you to Ass-u-me I take marching orders. I am very proud of my conservative friends. Then again, I do not have to justify my life to you. It's all good. April

Chris Anderson and his minions are working too hard to take away the rights of citizens to petition in accordance with the law. If the petition is approved, the people of District 7 will have 3,000 signatures in 2 days. Betcha. That is what that scoundrel Chris Anderson is concerned about. He should be more concerned with the fact he lied to the voters about his real agenda.

February 12, 2014 at 10:23 a.m.
GaussianInteger said...

And you and Wysong should be ashamed of resorting to lying to combat Chris Anderson's "lying". Your group did it during the petition drive back in November and I'm sure your group would use similar tactics during this recall effort. You, Wysong, and company are acting like children that didn't get their way. You guys wanted Anderson to dump the Domestic Partner Ordinance after your petition drive, he didn't, so here we are with this whole recall effort. Even Mark West had to publicly scold Wysong about attempting to connect him to the recall.

You being a female had nothing to do with my comments concerning marching orders. You just want your 5 minutes more of fame, which I stand by 100%.

February 12, 2014 at 11:27 a.m.
aae1049 said...

10,000 people signed the petition of CGAT to repeal the Domestic Partners Ordinance. Are you suggesting that the public cannot see the truth themselves? 10,000 people cannot be wrong.

Tell the people the truth and that Guass ain't gonna cost you a dime. Here is the poll.

No one scolded anyone publically, Oh the drama and theatrics, of being dumb, Democrat and Chris Anderson :-) there were just procedural issues.

Further, the Nooga professional polling by Dem operatives shows that over 60 percent of voters do NOT support Chris Anderson's ordinance. It is you that is a liar.

famous, that is so funny, not at all, my 5 minutes was over in 2008.

BTW you are a whining liberal coward hiding behind your user name. you must be Chris Anderson, Chris Brooks, or...those nutty Dems.

February 12, 2014 at 11:36 a.m.
GaussianInteger said...

"Liberal coward"? Hardly. One, I am not a liberal. Two, I served this country honorably for six years. During that time I was deployed overseas on three occasions. So why you may feel justified to attack me because I don't share your political views, don't for one second think I am going to allow you to attack my bravery when I put my life on the line to protect your freedoms.

And many of the "10,000" people were deceived by CGAT into signing the petition. You guys also attempted to shame people into signing by setting up in front of churches. That is fact.

February 12, 2014 at 11:55 a.m.
aae1049 said...

Glad you are safe from overseas. I do take issue with calling the public liars and my friends liars. Read the poll conducted by The public does not support Chris Anderson's ordinance.

If you are going to call people liars perhaps using your real name as you are using the name of others would be appropriate. It is cowardly to use names, then hide your own name.

February 12, 2014 at 11:55 a.m.
cooljb said...

In a prior comment it was stated "And many of the "10,000" people were deceived by CGAT into signing the petition. You guys also attempted to shame people into signing by setting up in front of churches. That is fact." Are you saying that everyone, or even most, of the people that signed the petition cannot think for themselves and were duped, even though the media was making the story the lead issue of the day? Also, how can that be claimed as fact? Has all of those people been interviewed and recanted their signing of the petition? If not, it is not fact and only an opinion, I am sure you would agree. The law for recalls is like any other law, if you don't like it get it changed, otherwise, it is the law. Easy.

February 12, 2014 at 12:24 p.m.
Ki said...

If the black community in District 7 were really informed and knew the truth behind this petition they'd rescind it, apologize to Anderson and offer to work with him to uplift their community.

This petition will work against them and do more long term harm than they can ever begin to imagine.

February 12, 2014 at 1:32 p.m.
aae1049 said...

A Dem pollster performed this professional poll for Just what truth KI is the public missing. You are full of allegations and no fact.

February 12, 2014 at 1:36 p.m.
Ki said...

Personally I question the poll. How it was taken and under what conditions? I'm a registered voter and this is my first time hearing of the poll. No one from Multi-Quest polled me.

Whether the poll was taken by a Democrat or Republican is of little to no meaning. Who paid John Grimm, founder of Multi-Quest to conduct the poll and why? How many Chattanoogans, or registered voters were actually asked their opinion on the issue? How much and by whom was Mr. Grimm paid to conduct the poll?

The only John Grimm I could find has actually worked with and for Republicans. Could it be his polls are conducted and their outcome are based on who pays him? Or which side pays the most? And why go to someone out of Louisiana to conduct a poll on a local Chattanooga issue? hmmmm

btw--the way polls work, if only 10 people are polled you can come up with a 60% for or against an issue if only 6 people out of respond. And those individuals usually respond based on the way the question is worded.

February 12, 2014 at 3:22 p.m.
aae1049 said...
<p> paid John Grim. All the questions you are asking are contained in their story and comments. These polls are typically conducted for campaigns to determine strengths and weakness for resource allocation. Media commonly conducts professional polls that are tied to a statistical mean and margin of error. There is error in all polling. However, subtracting the margin of error from the win side, is still a win.

In my opinion, Nooga leans left.

February 12, 2014 at 3:30 p.m.
Ki said...

The only time Nooga leaned left was when Rick Iqou controlled it. It became more right wing after he gave it up. IMHO.

February 12, 2014 at 3:33 p.m.
aae1049 said...

Nooga's editor is Adam Green former Young Dem leader, and manager of the Ann Coulter for Mayor campaign, and Dem operator. Please.

February 12, 2014 at 3:46 p.m.
Ki said...

Dem in name only. If he managed Ann Coulter's campaign (not the national annie)/more centralist or libertarian in actions perhaps?

February 12, 2014 at 3:50 p.m.
GaussianInteger said...

cooljb, I never said "all of the 10,000 or most of them", I said many of them. I was personally lied to by a couple of the petition volunteers and I have shared that story on this website and others. When I shared my story with a few of my acquaintances, they had seen or heard of similar tactics. Look, I am more of a kind of person that if something doesn't affect me, my family, or my closest friends, I reserve my opinions. I was lied to (by a guy I am quite familiar with and friendly with) in order to get me to sign the petition. And the lies told by this person had nothing to do with the cost of the Ordinance, it was an attempt at moral fear-mongering. Even the CGAT folks can't tell you their main objective. West and Juster say costs for taxpayers, Eidson says it is because "they discontinued older city employees benefits years ago", and Wysong is obviously doing it for moral reasons. Wysong chaps my tail because he had the audacity to compare the petition-drive to Pearl Harbor in an opinion on

April, I have never heard or saw Nooga's poll before you mentioned it.

So yes cooljb, what I stated is fact.

February 12, 2014 at 4:14 p.m.
aae1049 said...

Guass, you claim you were lied to, but you fail to disclose what lies and who. At the same time, you won't use you own name or the name of the person you claimed lied to you, you throw around the names of others.

If you are calling CGAT or anyone a liar by name, use you own real name in the manner you used mine.

February 12, 2014 at 4:19 p.m.
Ki said...

aussianInteger said: * I was lied to (by a guy I am quite familiar with and friendly with) in order to get me to sign the petition. *

The other tragedy is your friend was probably lied to also and was just spreading what he thought was truth.

February 12, 2014 at 4:44 p.m.
aae1049 said...

David Tullis has presented a great perspective of why the recall should proceed.

February 12, 2014 at 5:21 p.m.
GaussianInteger said...

David Tullis is another person that believes religion should be used in governing. He has no credibility with me.

April, I have kept the petitioner name hidden in order to protect said person. What he said was that "sex-changes would now have to be covered by the city's insurance" and he also said "men would now be able to use the women's restroom and could put their genitalia (I am not using the same word he used because I don't think it is mannered to use that language around females) in females' faces". The incident happened at a city-owned golf course the day after Thanksgiving. There are about five witnesses that will be happy to verify what I am saying is true.

February 12, 2014 at 6:33 p.m.
aae1049 said...

You say, he says, and you won't give your name, but throw everyone else's name. Gauss, you have no credibility at all.

Lets just toss 3,000 of the 10,000 signature on the petition for fun, and there is still of referendum.

What you are suggesting is that 10,000 people did not understand the petition and signed away.

February 12, 2014 at 7:57 p.m.
GaussianInteger said...

That is not what I'm suggesting at all. What I am suggesting is that some may have been lied to (as I was) in order to gain their signature. I am also suggesting that some signers may have felt pressured to sign as many were asked to sign in front on their church in the presence of fellow parishioners. And who wants to feel the wrath of parishioners talking behind their back questioning their faith?

Again, what do I have to gain from lying? My story has not changed one iota since I first mentioned it to you a few months ago. Unlike you and your group, I have no agenda. You know nothing about my credibility.

February 12, 2014 at 9:43 p.m.
Ki said...

GaussianInteger, maybe there should be a federal investigation into how those signatures were obtained and if the signers felt they were pressured to sign the petition. Seems like there might be some very serious violation of separation church/state having taken place here.

Petition gatherers in D-7 need to seriously consider the long term consequences of this petition that appears to have been influenced more by outsiders than anything else. This petition has the potential to do serious and irreversible harm to everything the Civil Rights Movement stood for and the Civil Rights Movement itself. This has greater consequences than they could ever imagine that can undo years and over a century of struggles. Someone needs to sit down and have a serious conversation with them.

February 13, 2014 at 9:54 a.m.

Yes, those homosexuals are just the cream of the crop, aren't they? A cut above the rest of us.

Hey, look at me, I'm letting you know that I like sticking my penis in another man's anus!! What are you going to do about it??

Why should we know? What he does in his private life is his own business. What's the difference between between having him in the showers with the other players and a female? How is not sexual from Sam's point of view. I'll tell you what, if I was showering in locker room with a bunch of females my mind would sure be racing. Why wouldn't it?

Homosexuals want to be viewed as normal, and they never will. Normal being a man being attracted to a woman. They can do what they want, have at it. This is America. What they want is a special status, and labeled as normal. Sorry, it ain't going to happen. You are what you are.

The insult of insults is how they like to compare the "GAY" movement to the black struggle for equality in this country. That says it all, and says how wacked they are.

February 13, 2014 at 11:31 a.m.
GaussianInteger said...

Fister, the only time I hear anal mentioned when discussing homosexuality is when guys like you, Conman, and Ken Orr start it. I never hear gay guys talking about their sex lives. I think you guys have some hidden fetishes.

Ki, I guarantee many felt pressured to sign. In the incident that happened to me, the petitioner approached me in the presence of about 20 other people (I don't know how many had signed or had not signed) in the clubhouse at a local golf course. The first question the guy had was, "do you live in the city"? I almost said no, just so the guy wouldn't hassle me, but I said yes. I then said I didn't have a problem with the ordinance and that is when he began his spill about "sex changes being covered" and "men being able to use the women's restroom and exposing their genitalia to women". I then said that was the first time I heard that mentioned with the ordinance and I did not believe that was part of the ordinance. Another gentleman (that had signed the petition) then joined our conversation and said it was true.

February 13, 2014 at 12:33 p.m.

Wrong, Gauss. If it's such a wonderful thing, and they choose to be defined by it, then what's the problem? You moron, I father had to take a school system to court in California to take action against a school system for promoting, in literature, that the anus is a genital. The same in NY. They are defined by their sexual practices. Because of their push to normalize it, they are defined by it. Unless they tell shove it down our throats, how else would we know? Sam has chosen to put that our front instead of keeping his private life private. Do other heterosexual players promote their sexual behavior?

February 13, 2014 at 12:44 p.m.

Sam has chosen to define himself by his homosexuality first before he's even set foot on an NFL field. So therefore people will view him as a man who likes to perform sexual acts on another man. That's what a homosexual does. If he would have proven himself on the field first, then later it came out that he was homosexual, then he would deserve more respect.

February 13, 2014 at 12:48 p.m.

If I see Joe Smith walking down the street, I see Joe Smith, and I don't give a crap what he does in his private life. It's none of my business. But, if Joe Smith is walking down the street with a sign that says he's gay and deal with it, then that changes everything. If I first see him I don't define him at all, if he's gay it's his business, if he's heterosexual, it's his business, not mine. If he works for me and does a great job, then I don't care what he is. If he's constantly promoting his sexual orientation, then that's a problem. Keep it to yourself.

February 13, 2014 at 1:11 p.m.
GaussianInteger said...

"So therefore people will view him as a man who likes to perform sexual acts on another man."

Only sickos like you. I, along with the majority of football fans, will simply view him as another football player.

"Do other heterosexual players promote their sexual behavior?"

Has Sam? No, he simply said he was homosexual. It's guy like you fantasizing about what he does behind closed doors. You are a sick human being.

February 13, 2014 at 1:59 p.m.

Wrong,'s sick to be ok with that. When he "came out" he no longer is a football player, he's a homosexual who plays football. This how upside down and wacked this nation is now. Homosexuality is ok, and it's ok to promote it to children? That's sick. It's sick to teach children that an anus is now a genital. That's sick. When I see Drew Brees, Russel Wilson or any other player play i never for a second think about any aspect of their life other than that they're playing on the field. But, Sam will be looked at that way because he's chosen to "celebrate" his homosexuality. There're a surely other homosexual player playing, but no one will think of it because they don't promote it or flaunt it. That's the way it should be. I don't want to know of any players sexual activities, none of my business, but homosexuals stand out because they're pushing to make it normal or acceptable. It will never be.

February 13, 2014 at 3:14 p.m.
Ki said...

zabbledoo, according to your 11:31 a.m. post you appear to have an unnatural and unhealthy obsession with where someone sticks their penis. Are you sure you're not hiding in the closet? Might I remind you that some heterosexual couples also engage in anal and oral sex? Especially in the "christian" community? Where they use some quote from the christian bible to justify it when they want to engage in it. But relationships are about more than sex. If you're looking at sex as the glue that holds a relationship together, then no wonder the bible belt is home to the highest divorce rate in the nation.

February 13, 2014 at 3:51 p.m.
conservative said...

"Petition to recall Chris Anderson approved" - TFP


February 13, 2014 at 4:15 p.m.
Ki said...

Petition approved doesn't guarantee success.

February 13, 2014 at 5:19 p.m.
aae1049 said...

KI, you have no idea. They will have 3,000 registered voter signatures in less than three weeks.

February 13, 2014 at 6:08 p.m.
GaussianInteger said...

Anything to get the gays out, right April?

February 13, 2014 at 6:38 p.m.
Ki said...

Oh, but you are so wrong, aae. I do have an idea. I know that when you think you've won your lost will be 1000% greater. It's unfortunate for the ones who think they're actually in control of the petition in reality don't have a clue the negative impact it will have on thems. When the time comes, your gang will leave them high, dry and alone.

February 13, 2014 at 8:06 p.m.
jesse said...

Somehow i can't get a grip on this being about "GAY" since he was up front about that issue from the getgo and won office despite it!

I think he put his gay agenda on the front burner and relegated everything else to the "down the road " file! He let HIS priorities over ride what the voters were expecting of him!!Now it's biting him on the ass ,as it should!!

February 13, 2014 at 8:21 p.m.
GaussianInteger said...

Jesse, look whose name is at the top of the recall petition. Charles Wysong. Guys like him and April expected the Ordinance to be shelved after the petition drive back in November. April assumed the bill would be scrapped, but instead the council voted in favor again and forced it onto the ballot for August. This is their payback for not shelving the bill and it doesn't take a lot of inside information to see the true writing on the wall. If District 7 wanted to recall Anderson, why was Wysong involved at all? He drafted the recall petition and was scolded by Mark West for linking CGAT to the recall petition. My belief (and I don't expect an honest answer from CGAT) is that the November petition was centered more around Christian biblical morality and less about fiscal responsibility and that caused a conflict between leaders within the Tea Party. Again, when I saw Wysong's (who does not live in District 7) name on the petition, I saw this was cheap retribution at the expense of the residents of District 7. A person like you Jesse should be appalled at what's happening.

February 13, 2014 at 8:35 p.m.
GaussianInteger said...

Ki, I wish some of the poor in District 7 would attend a Tea Party meeting so they could meet some of the people trying to "help them". They are playing games with the residents of the district to further their agenda. I honestly don't see how Wysong sleeps at night, especially since he is such a devout Christian.

February 13, 2014 at 8:42 p.m.
aae1049 said...

The voters need to decide by referendum, it is up to them.

As for District 7, I don't know those folks, but support them. It is a citizen right to recall. Get the law changed, if you don't like recall.

February 13, 2014 at 11:37 p.m.
Ki said...

GaussianInteger, I hear ya' loud and clear. If those poor voters in District 7 really knew the truth about what Tea Partiers think of them they'd have never gotten involved in this recall mess. And believe me when I say it's one huge mess that will become a burden and curse they won't be able to rid themselves of anytime soon.

February 13, 2014 at 11:51 p.m.

Wrong. Gays are define themselves by what they do by flaunting their homosexuality. By declaring he's gay, and proud, before he ever set foot on an NFL field, Sam will forever be known by that rather than what he's done. As long they insist that what they are is normal they will always be defined by their behavior. If they kept it themselves, then it wouldn't be a problem. Relationships take a back seat because of their political agenda, like teaching kids in school that an anus is a genital. That's a fact.

February 14, 2014 at 12:23 a.m.
Ki said...

zabledoof, you mean, sort of kind like well into the 1980s interracial couples were still being persecuted in many southern and southwestern towns? Often rejected primarily by the white side of their families? If there were any offspring produced from such unions and the black spouse died, the only way the surviving white spouse family would consider allowing their child or sibling back into their white family was they had to leave their black child or children behind to be raised by the black side of their family. And even sometimes that wasn't acceptable. If there were no living black relatives the children sometimes went into foster care. They use to have an old saying in those days: "Once you've been with a black you can't come back."
I can recall one such incident locally where the black children (today they would be called bi-racial, but back then they were considered black no matter how light their skin) of an interracial couple were left behind to be raised by the black side of their family after the black spouse was killed.

February 14, 2014 at 12:57 a.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »


Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.