Every once in a while, I am reminded why I am a Democrat, and why I am not a Republican. Sometimes it is just another daily event, but sometimes the declaration of one person are enough to suffice. I had one of those experiences today while perusing the Republican finger-pointing going on here in Virginia, where the party has lost ground in the state government steadily if slowly since 2001.
During the 2005 campaign, an extremely conservative delegate from Richmond's southern suburbs, Brad Marrs (R-Chesterfield Co.) apparently thought it would be politically expedient to play the "gay card" in this district. The card was played based on the fact that a prominent Richmond gay businessman (Mac Pence) had donated to the campaign of Marrs' opponent, Katherine Waddell (a centrist independent endorsed by the Democrats). But Marrs did much more than just insinuate. He became a wee bit obsessed with all things homosexual
(was going to link to Marrs' freaky letter, but the website is wigging out, look it up on South of the James). Apparently this didn't result in the stampede of support Mr. Marrs expected, because he lost his seat by 42 votes.
But as the above-linked letter demonstrates, Mr. Marrs apparently thinks this is the fault of the Richmond Times-Dispatch for not being sufficiently anti-gay or pro-conservative. Never mind the fact that this paper gas endorsed only one Democrat in a quarter century, but Marrs refuses to even back himself up with any real facts. I'd demolish the arguments, but Conway Haskins of the excellent VA Politics blog South of the James does it so well that I'll let him tell you:
Mr. Marrs, a lawyer by trade, took it upon himself to define for his entire political movement a sentiment that does not reflect the emerging scientific reality that human sexuality - including homosexuality - has some biological factors. Granted, final definitive studies have not been published, and results of existing studies are conflicting, but a consensus indicates that statement such as Mr. Marrs' cannot be passed off as factual. Still, Mr. Marrs is entitled to his opinion, regardless of how rooted, or not, in truth. What he fails to demonstrate is an understanding that, by his same logic, straight guys - like him and me - must also have made the choice to be heterosexuals. For the life of me, I retain no memory of such a choice; I've always been attracted to women. Still, I supposed that I should be glad to know that mine was the morally upright course.
Haskins, in an especially damning paragraph, continues:
Somehow, in their minds, we heterosexuals stand to have our own marriages undermined if gays are granted the ability to engage in civil unions, adopt unwanted children, and get spousal benefits at work. The horror! I'll remember that sinister gay influence the next time that I see a married straight guy pick up a hooker, a married straight woman kiss her boyfriend, or when take a look at the number of heterosexual divorce notices in the local papers (including the Times-Dispatch). I'm sure that if you asked my own wife, she'd tell you that my messy tendencies around the house have done more to negatively affect our matrimonial bliss that some phantom gay menace.
Couldn't agree more. What's the deal with these people's creepy obsession with all these sexual things?