At Some Point, You Gotta Pass the Torch

Houston politics has been extra these past two years. And I don’t mean fun extra — I mean the kind of extra where you’re tired, confused, grieving, checking Google every five minutes, and wondering when the adults in the room are going to get it together.

And look: I say all this with deep respect. I’m not attacking anybody’s age, ability, or health. I’m not telling elders to sit down. I’m saying something simple:

Nobody is here forever. And if you truly love the people you serve, you should be training the person who comes after you.

That’s where my head is. And that’s why I think Congressman Al Green — who has done so much for Houston — might want to consider ending his service on a high note and helping build what comes next.

Let me explain.

---

Houston Took Two Major Losses Back-to-Back

In less than two years, we lost Sheila Jackson Lee and Sylvester Turner — two people who didn’t just hold office; they were Houston politics.

Sheila Jackson Lee was everywhere — every parade, every community event, every crisis, every microphone. That woman served with fire. And her death from pancreatic cancer left a huge hole in the 18th District.

Then Sylvester Turner — our former mayor, someone with literal decades of leadership — stepped up to replace her. And before he could even settle in, he passed away, too.

Two giants, gone.

Two seats empty.

And a whole community left trying to hold itself together without clarity or direction.

And again — let me be super clear — I am not saying they were too old. Life happens. Illness happens. None of us are immortal.

But that’s the point.

When leaders don’t build a bench, communities suffer when something unexpected happens.

---

And Then Greg Abbott Stepped In and Made Everything Worse

You would think the Governor would quickly call a special election so Houston wouldn’t be left without representation, right?

Wrong.

Greg Abbott delayed and dragged his feet like he was allergic to giving a majority-Black district a voice in Congress. And the whole time this was happening, Texas Republicans were also pushing through mid-decade redistricting, which is:

• Unnecessary

• Disruptive

• Confusing

• And honestly? In bad taste

Because why are we redrawing maps like we’re rearranging living room furniture during a hurricane?

Redistricting should NOT be something you pull out in the middle of a decade just because it benefits you politically. And doing it while Houston is already grieving and unrepresented? That’s not governance. That’s games.

And because of those delays, instead of having a representative months ago, we now have to wait until January for a runoff between Christian Menefee and Amanda Edwards.

Houston did not deserve this chaos.

---

This Is Why Succession Planning Matters

This whole situation made me sit back and go:

“Why don’t our longtime representatives have someone ready to go?”

Corporations plan succession.

Churches plan succession.

Family businesses definitely plan succession.

But politics?

It’s like everybody wants to hold the seat until the wheels fall off and then let the community figure out the mess on their own.

That’s not fair.

That’s not leadership.

And honestly? That’s how districts end up vulnerable to exactly what just happened to us.

---

So Where Does Al Green Fit Into This?

Al Green has served with dignity, consistency, and heart for decades. He has earned his flowers. Nobody can take that away from him.

But with these new Texas maps and the opening of a brand-new congressional district, this is a moment for him to choose legacy over longevity.

He could absolutely run and win.

But he also has the chance to become the elder statesman who says:

“I’ve done my part. Now let me help prepare the next leader.”

And honestly? That would be powerful. That would be leadership. That would be the opposite of what we just lived through with the 18th District.

---

Here’s What Makes Sense to Me

Christian Menefee and Amanda Edwards are the two candidates headed to the January runoff. Both are talented. Both are respected. Both would serve Houston well.

So instead of letting one “lose” and disappear, here’s what I think should happen:

• Whoever wins becomes the representative for the 18th District.

• Whoever doesn’t win should be earmarked for the new congressional district that’s about to open up with a March runoff.

Why start from zero when we already have strong candidates right in front of us?

This is how you build stability.

This is how you build a political future.

This is how you stop the chaos.

---

Legacy Isn’t Just What You Did — It’s Who You Prepare

Al Green has done the work. Nobody can argue that. But the next chapter of leadership in Houston doesn’t have to be chaotic or traumatic. It can be intentional.

We’ve already seen what happens when we don’t prepare.

We’ve already seen how quickly we can be left unrepresented.

We’ve already seen how political games — like mid-decade redistricting — can hurt communities that have been resilient for generations.

Now is the time for wisdom.

Now is the time for mentorship.

Now is the time to build the next generation of leaders before we need them.

And if anybody can set that example with grace and dignity, it’s Al Green.

Freedom of Religion: Faith Thrives Through Choice and Respect

In the United States, faith grows in hearts, not under government control. True devotion comes from love, choice, and personal conviction. Our Constitution protects freedom of religion, allowing Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Baha’is, Jains, Indigenous spiritual practitioners, and people of all beliefs—including atheists and agnostics—to worship, celebrate traditions, or live by conscience.

Religious freedom strengthens both society and faith. Christians celebrate Christmas, pray at home, lead church services, and share their faith openly. Muslims pray, fast during Ramadan, and gather in mosques. Jews observe Shabbat and celebrate Hanukkah. Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, and Jains hold festivals, perform rituals, and teach their children their beliefs. Even people without religion live according to conscience, free from imposed faith.

Misunderstandings arise when people claim one religion threatens another. The Arabic word “Allah” means simply “God,” and Arabic-speaking Christians have used it for centuries. A call to prayer, a hijab, or a Hindu festival in public spaces does not diminish anyone else’s faith. These practices reflect devotion, not competition.

Faith flourishes when chosen freely. Christianity, like every religion, thrives when it inspires love, service, and moral guidance—not dominance or suppression. Jesus taught peacemaking, humility, and love for neighbors, including people of different faiths. Other traditions emphasize compassion and respect as well: Judaism calls for tikkun olam—repairing the world; Islam emphasizes mercy and justice; Buddhism focuses on compassion and reducing suffering; Hinduism values dharma—righteous living; Jainism emphasizes nonviolence and truth; Indigenous traditions honor balance and respect for all creation. Even atheists contribute moral guidance and civic virtue through reason, empathy, and shared human values.

Protecting religious freedom does not weaken Christianity or any faith. It strengthens society, creating an environment where moral values, spiritual growth, and service flow from choice, not law. When every faith thrives, people practice principles they believe in, and communities flourish in respect, freedom, and love.

Faith lives fully when freedom reigns. Christians follow Jesus, Muslims follow Muhammad, Hindus honor their deities, Jews study Torah, Buddhists practice mindfulness, Jains uphold nonviolence, and people of all beliefs—including atheists—contribute to a society built on respect and compassion. Freedom of religion allows every person, every faith, and every heart to flourish.

When They Claim They’re “Protecting Women,” I Don’t Buy It

Every time I hear lawmakers say they’re protecting women, something in me pushes back. Protecting women’s sports. Protecting women’s privacy. Protecting women’s spaces. The words sound familiar, but the actions don’t match. It feels less like protection and more like performance.

Across red states—and now at the federal level—lawmakers keep pushing bills that ban transgender women from sports teams and public bathrooms. They sell these laws as care for women and girls, but all I see is a fixation on controlling a small group of people while ignoring the problems most women face every day.

Women have asked for equal pay for decades. We’ve asked for affordable childcare, paid family leave, better maternal healthcare, and real accountability for sexual assault. We’ve asked for rape kits to get tested instead of collecting dust for years. We’ve asked for protection from harassment and violence in our workplaces, schools, and homes. Yet lawmakers keep choosing a different fight—one that costs them very little politically and fixes nothing materially.

Texas now enforces laws that block trans students from using restrooms that align with their gender identity and threatens universities with massive fines if they don’t comply. Other states follow suit, redefining sex so narrowly that trans women disappear from public life altogether. On the federal stage, politicians try to rewrite civil rights protections under the banner of “fairness in women’s sports,” even though those efforts target a tiny population.

That’s what makes this feel dishonest. Trans women make up a very small percentage of the population, yet politicians center them again and again, not because they pose some widespread threat, but because they serve as a convenient symbol. Fear mobilizes voters faster than compassion ever will.

What bothers me most comes down to enforcement. Every time someone argues for bathroom bans, I ask the same question: who enforces this? Who checks? Who decides whether someone looks “female enough” to walk into a bathroom without getting questioned, stares, or worse? These laws drag all women into surveillance. They turn restrooms into spaces of suspicion. They invite strangers to police bodies—and that should disturb every single one of us.

Women didn’t ask for this. I don’t know a woman who said, “This solves my problems.” I know women who feel exhausted. Who feel unheard. Who juggle work and family without support. Who navigate healthcare systems that dismiss their pain. Who worry about safety far more often than about who stands next to them in a bathroom.

When lawmakers claim they’re helping women while ignoring everything women actually demand, it feels insulting. It feels like being used as cover. Like our lives function as talking points instead of realities that deserve serious solutions.

These laws don’t protect women. They divide us. They cast trans women as threats and treat cis women like props. They deflect attention away from broken systems and redirect it toward a group with the least power to push back.

Real support for women would look different. It would center economic security, healthcare, autonomy, and safety. It would expand opportunity instead of shrinking who belongs. It wouldn’t rely on humiliation, surveillance, or fear.

When politicians talk about protecting women, I pay attention to what they choose to protect us from—and what they choose to ignore. Right now, they ignore pay gaps, healthcare disparities, childcare crises, and violence against women. Instead, they police bathrooms.

The fact that we now have to ask who belongs in a bathroom tells me everything I need to know about how far off track we’ve gone.

---

Support Systems Don’t Destroy Families

Every so often, someone appears to warn us that if women rely too much on government support, we will collectively forget how marriage works. As though the presence of public assistance causes rings to slide dramatically off fingers. As if Medicaid is standing in a doorway whispering, “You don’t need him anymore.” This argument assumes one extremely important thing: that women must choose between love and infrastructure. Apparently, we cannot have both.

The framing usually goes like this: if the government supports you, you won’t need a husband. And if you don’t need a husband, you won’t want one. And if you don’t want one, the collapse of society is imminent. This suggests marriage and government assistance are competing romantic prospects. Like the government is nervously twirling its hair while a husband clears his throat across the room. But here’s the thing: marriage has never once paved a road, funded a public school, provided unemployment insurance, approved family medical leave, or shown up during a hurricane. My husband is wonderful, but he cannot process a FEMA claim.

Historically, women relied on men not because it was ideal but because it was legally required. Marriage wasn’t just love—it was survival paperwork. For a long time, women couldn’t own property, couldn’t open bank accounts, couldn’t leave marriages easily or safely, and definitely couldn’t say, “I need time to find myself” without serious consequences. If your choices are marry a man or enter poverty immediately, that’s not romance. That’s economic coercion with a lace veil. So when people say, “Women should rely on husbands instead of the government,” what they’re really asking is for women to re-enter a system where dependence was compulsory, not chosen. Pass.

Somewhere along the way, we started talking about public support like it’s a substitute for intimacy. As if a woman wakes up one day and says, “I was hoping for companionship, emotional connection, and mutual respect… but then I received affordable healthcare, and the desire for love completely evaporated.” Government programs do not listen to your feelings, split the mental load, argue about dishes, make you laugh when you’re tired, or hold your hand when you’re scared. A safety net doesn’t replace relationships. It replaces desperation.

People choose better relationships when they aren’t choosing under threat. When you don’t need marriage in order to eat, stay housed, or receive medical care, you can wait, you can choose well, and you can leave if you need to. “You’re with me because you want to be” is a lot more romantic than “You’re with me because my job has health insurance.” A society that supports people doesn’t weaken families—it allows them to form voluntarily instead of under pressure.

And it’s always interesting how this argument singles out women, as if men don’t collect Social Security, don’t use Medicare, don’t rely on veterans benefits, don’t file for unemployment, and don’t enjoy roads, bridges, and electricity. If using public infrastructure makes marriage unnecessary, then we need to have a very serious conversation with every married man who drives on a publicly funded street.

You can want marriage, value partnership, and believe in family, and at the same time support public healthcare, believe in childcare assistance, want labor protections, and support people regardless of marital status. This is not moral confusion. This is understanding that personal relationships and social systems serve different purposes. Your partner is there to love you. Your government is there to make sure no one falls through the cracks. No one is asking one to replace the other.

Wanting government support doesn’t mean you don’t value marriage. Wanting marriage doesn’t mean you want dependence. The government is not my husband. My husband is not my government. One shares life with me. The other makes sure bridges don’t collapse. It’s okay to want both.