It looks like other Virginia bloggers have noticed that Some Families Foundation alert.
Too Conservative for the most part gets it. The specious implication that opponents of the anti-civil union constitutional amendment are non-religious, the ideological blindness that is causing this wing of the Republican party to alienate potential voters, and the hypocrisy of those calling themselves Christians who single out the GLBT community for bashing are all glaring examples of what’s wrong with the politics of the anti-gay right.
We know that among our readers, there are quite a few who would be active in the Republican party for fiscal and other reasons if they didn’t get the message loud and clear that they are excluded because of their sexual orientation. Thanks for trying to talk some sense into the destructive extremists in your party, TC. It’s worth a try.
On the other hand, Two Conservatives has a post up that exclusively focuses on the “Sunday-during-church” meme that is so prominent in the SFF alert. There’s a self-congratulatory tone about this analysis, as if the author thinks he has discovered something of great significance in the fact that Equality Virginia canvassers would do outreach on a Sunday – namely that EV is selectively targeting “non-churchgoers.”
It probably hasn’t occurred to him that only some Equality Virginia supporters will be doing this outreach. At the same time, many more of us will be in church, sharing our lives with the other “churchgoers” who will be voting against any mean-spirited – and dare we say un-Christian – attempts to harm our families and drive us from our communities.
When members of the anti-gay right try to analyze and explain how we advocate for ourselves, their accusations tell us a great deal about their own activities – in this case, that they intend to selectively “target churchgoers.” But we already knew that.
Thanks for your comments, Charles.
Canvassing on weekends is standard practice for candidates of both major parties, so much so that I don’t think most people would give it a second thought. This is precisely because, while many people do go to church, many others are at home on a Sunday morning.
This focus seems to me to be way overblown, and I suspect that’s by design. We are a community of many faiths, not everyone goes to church on Sunday, and most of those who do recognize and accept the fact that not everyone does.
Those churchgoers who are so exclusionary that they are offended when everyone else in the community doesn’t keep their Sabbath are also the ones who are so exclusionary that they would support this amendment even knowing that it will harm people. It would be an understatement to say there’s not much to be gained by pandering to them – by definition, they don’t care about the views of people who aren’t exactly like them.
I’m not available to do canvassing on Sunday mornings, either, for the same reason as you – I’m in church – but it doesn’t bother me that other people are doing it. I have to wonder if this is a criticism that you regularly raise with candidates? Would you refuse to support an otherwise conservative candidate who did lit drops on a Sunday?
I also wonder if you could share with us why it is that you support this amendment. Why do you feel that it’s appropriate to take authority away from the legislature to decide matters of family relationships and contracts between unmarried people, and put authority over such matters solely in the hands of unelected judges?
What is it that you expect to accomplish with this amendment, best and worst case? And please be more specific than “protect traditional marriage.” Tell us what you think that means in terms of real families living in Virginia.