Supervisor Delgaudio pretending to be a criminal source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BWMgydjhOc
The Arlington County prosecutor, Theophani K. Stamos, looking into the gay-bashing Loudoun County Sterling Supervisor Eugene Delgaudio, never invited the grand jury to vote on whether Mr. Delgaudio committed any crime.
She identified one crime, then said Mr. Delgaudio couldn’t commit it, and took the voting decision away from the grand jury.
Mr. Delgaudio’s counsel said afterwards that Delgaudio “cooperated fully.” How is it then that the prosecutor never asked Mr. Delgaudio to testify before the Grand Jury “under oath?”
Mr. Delgaudio has been a political trickster since 1987 at the helm of Public Advocate. Mr. Delgaudio wore a black and white striped convict’s uniform that year on Capitol Hill, waved placards at passing Senators, insisted U.S. Supreme Court Nominee, Robert Bork, was too tough on crime for criminals to support him, expecting this opaque irony would somehow convince Senators to vote for his confirmation. They didn’t. 58 Senators said “No.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BWMgydjhOc
Delgaudio’s political theater since has only confirmed his rudeness and bigotry, particularly toward gays.
Not too long ago, Public Advocate allegedly hijacked a copyrighted marriage photo of a gay couple, photo-shopped it, and published it in a political campaign attack on an unrelated Colorado State Senator who supported civil unions.
In order to support his questionable political antics, Delgaudio raises money for Public Advocate, $1.1 million in 2011 (and he paid himself $133,000 that year). PA 990
It was little surprise therefore that the Grand Jury focused on Mr. Delgaudio’s fund-raising.
Mr. Delgaudio hired Donna Mateer as an aide but, instead of having her work on County business, responding to constituents, County staffers, and other Supervisors, Mr. Delgaudio gave her a script to arrange meetings for Mr. Delgaudio to raise funds to retire his campaign debt.
Mateer worked on County time at taxpayer’s expense. According to the Grand Jury, “Supervisor Delgaudio was the one responsible for certifying time and attendance records for his BOS aides.” Presumably, Mr. Delgaudio certified Ms. Mateer as working for the County when she was not.
Delgaudio told anyone who would listen that he was really raising funds for a local football league, and not his campaign. The Grand Jury reported, however, that they heard sworn testimony that Mr. Delgaudio was not raising funds for the football league. This was a missed opportunity for the prosecutor to ask Mr. Delgaudio under oath why his public statements were at odds with what the Grand Jury had learned.
The Grand Jury considered perjury charges for a pastor believed to serve as a conduit for cash contributors to give to Mr. Delgaudio. An envelope memorialized a $5,000 contribution close in time to a Board vote by Delgaudio when he changed his position on the construction of a Loudoun County building.
The prosecutor was blind to any charge by the salaried Mr. Delgaudio misleading the County paymaster because, she said, he was not “full time.” When the Board doubled its Member’s salary in 2008, the reason the Board offered was that one couldn’t serve as a Supervisor and hold a conventional job. One Supervisor said you had to be retired or rich to serve. Chairman Scott York reportedly said there were days you could pay him $200,000 and it wouldn’t compensate what he did for the County.
An additional question is, does this mean, the prosecutor did not consider any other possible charges, not grand or petit larceny (18.2-95,96), nor embezzlement (18.2-111), nor fraudulent entries (18.2-113), not obtaining money under false pretenses (18.2-178), nor false statements to obtain property or credit (18.2-186)?
It feels like the prosecutor proposed “reforms” as a sop for denying the Grand Jury any opportunity to vote on the testimony it considered. It’s also ironic — the thought of reform — when our Board opposes even an ethics policy.
From the beginning of this grand jury investigation, it was clear it was going nowhere. This same prosecutor would have had to reverse her first opinion, before there was a Grand Jury, when she cleared Mr. Delgaudio in record time.
Some asked months ago, why do we need to file a petition by the citizens of Sterling to remove Supervisor Delgaudio?
It’s because only the people can possibly rid themselves of politicians like Supervisor Delgaudio.
Pingback: What a surprise, religious liberty is alive and well – Loudoun Progress
Then you should read what the Board has posted as its agenda — having to do with the self-dealing Delgaudio seeking to delay this day/evening of reckoning – http://www.loudoun.gov/documents/11/1336/11058/11558/07-17-13%20BOS%20Supplemental%20Packet2%20-%20Item%2018_201307171040091415.pdf
Should be an interesting meeting.
I enjoyed the foaming at “real”loudoun, where there was much outrage that nothing had been published for the citizens in advance of the board meeting re that agenda item, and the very next post foamed at the mouth that Delgaudio had sought a temporary injunction to see what action they were going to take before they take it.
“real” people should know before the subject of the item.
Consistency rocks!
Not only has the court shut down delay delgaudio, the board has listed five charges for discussion this evening and opened up the meeting for members to comment and question including no more delay delgaudio. will delay lose his voice? 50-50 chance I’d say. This was former supervisor whitener’s Waterloo when the board did this and he was criticized for assaulting two female members of the board (1 r, 1d). As catharsis goes, finally having the board address this mess, that’s a major leap forward – in the right direction. Somebody should say this is about good and better government, shutting down self-dealing elected pols, and not about party.
So wow, big surprise, the Court denied his injunction. I thought it was interesting that the cornered rat’s attorney came out and said this publicly…
“King said if the board continued to pursue punishment against Delgaudio he would subpoena witnesses to further probe the possibility the other supervisors failed to report contributions.”
Am already popping popcorn for meeting-watching this evening.
John, is he suing to prevent any action, or seeking to delay action without having the opportunity to be presented with and answer charges, examine witnesses, etc? I got the impression for the article that it was a delay:
“An injunction from the circuit court would mean the Board of Supervisors delay or refrain from disciplinary action against Delgaudio.
According to the request for declaratory relief, “Although the board need not operate similar to a court, some modicum of due process must be accorded to [Delgaudio] before action is taken against him.” ”
It asks certain processes be met before action is taken, which seems more reasonable than demanding none be taken.
It looks like Delgaudio finally realizes he’s in real trouble – even fron his own board – and he’s suing the board to prevent them from disciplining him – http://www.loudountimes.com/news/article/delgaudio_v._loudoun_board_of_supervisors_supervisor_files_complaint432 it’s what we call speculative and not yet a ripe controversy – so he should lose this one.
I’m sorry I was unclear, EPU–I was commenting on your declaration of who is or is not a Republican. Don’t they get rights of self-designation?
As to your linked article, it appears to be four fifths synopsis of gay history in America, and one fifth advertising the author’s new book on gay rights.
The history of gay rights in America and advertising a book is a treatise on conservative values?
I repeatedly stated my positions far far above in the thread, and continued to be attacked as a bigot etc.
So, IOW, the typical prog formula continues.
That may be a typical Barbara response, but it sure doesn’t qualify as an argument. Would you like to try again? Conservative values: Go!
Here we go again–EPU, who designated YOU the definition police of what is or isn’t a party you don’t belong to or support?
No one is allowed to define you, right? Still missing the executive order that ceded the power to define everything to you, anywhere, anytime, because LGBTQQOetcphobiaracismwaronwomenchristianist, eleventy.
One of the jokes remains your seeming belief that pronouncing your opinion equals fact.
Delgaudio, of course, is not a Republican, which is the joke. They can’t figure out how to rid themselves of him. Barbara doesn’t actually jump to the defense of Republicans per se, only certain individuals of her own choosing. She, for whatever reason, chose him.
Here is commentary by an actual Republican and conservative. Would be entertaining to hear the argument that these are not conservative values.
Yes, I’m sure some of your best friends are Republicans (not that there’s anything wrong with that).
You just revile them right NOW.
regularly.
Near-comprehensively.
At the local, state and federal level.
24/7/365.
rotfl
You see, Barbara Munsey, that is where you are wrong, because I have voted for Republicans, I have donated to Republicans, I have even campaigned for Republicans. You personally I believe know some of those Republicans.
So, you are flat out wrong.
I simply do not like Republicans (or reactionaries who call themselves Republicans) who use that label to hide their racism, homophobia, class warfare, etc. I count Delgaudio as one of those. What I revile about the Republican label right now is that Republicans have too often in recent times let the Delgaudios define their agenda, in fact they seem incapable lately of letting anyone BUT the Delgaudios define their agenda.
If it has a Republican label on it, progressives like elderberry will spring to revile it.
Even if it makes them espouse slogans that are in fundamental conflict with other slogans they incessantly chant.
This is why many thinking persons pay no attention whatsoeverto what they say, other than to note whatever they are chanting in favor of, so they can avoid voting for it.
So elderberry, do you think the guys tesitified?
Do you think they will ever answer the question?
Why, if I were a prog in good standing on this blog, I’d start repeating “the silence is DEAFENING!” snif!
If it has a Republican label on it, Barbara Munsey will spring to its defense. Unconditionally.
Even if that makes her support views and persons who (based on her avowed ideas an opinions) she fundamentally disagrees with.
This of course prevents most thinking persons from being able to have any respect for her whatsoever.
I’m sure it is.
So, did you guys testify?
Yes, it’s much, much better than nothing. 🙂
EPU, John made it clear in his first reply to me that he was discussing “the sorry effort of the Arlington Prosecutor”, so I defer to the author on intent. Of course, he immediately segued into “that makes you a gay-bashing bigot”, but that’s SOP here. I answered the questions, btw–three times. DID you guys testify?
I read the report, and the conclusions were uniform that while circumstantial evidence suggests things, it does not rise to the level of breaking law. It begins that all there are to deal with are allegations. I found it interesting that while jurors may ask questions, there is no legal cross examination of witnesses. My favorite, regarding the PA vs. county, was that “while some individuals” felt it was criminal, there was nothing in evidence that suggested it rose to that level. (did you guys testify, or other members of RAPAC?)
It is not “unprecedented” for a report to be issued, and why slam Stamos for officially requesting it be entered into record (she had to sign it in the line marked “I officially request etc”), since no laws were broken and a record is all you’ve got?
isn’t that better than nothing?
If you are back to the contention that since an aide might have more than one job, and be paid by more than one entity (Delgaudio’s office budget, and his business) the fact that they have two jobs seems somewhat akin to the fact that Delgaudio has two jobs (part-time legislator + day job). Perhaps you can lobby the BoS to institute a policy that some day jobs must be approved for part time aides paid out of supervisors’ office budgets? remember Dillon
I know, it’s just remarkable that a post entitled “Prosecutor Punts on Delgaudio!” has “devolved” into a discussion of that very topic.
The Grand Jury report is devastating. For those who haven’t read it, it’s important to understand that not only was no indictment handed down because of the language in the VA code limiting prosecution for misuse of public assets to full-time employees; the review of evidence and calling of witnesses, the investigation itself, was halted because the loophole in the law would supposedly make additional evidence unusable: “Consequently, additional avenues of potential investigation were ultimately dropped.”
The improper blurring of Supervisor/campaign and “Public Advocate” activities is not news anymore. Not only is there abundant evidence of it, Delgaudio has made no particular effort to cover it up, openly holding staff meetings with his county aides at “Public Advocate” offices, placing his aides under the supervision of “Public Advocate” employees, and directing his aides to participate in “Public Advocate” street theater. If the jury saw no conclusive evidence that his staff aides attended to “Public Advocate” business while on county time, they themselves point out that “Supervisor Delgaudio was the one responsible for certifying time and attendance records for his BOS aides.” Who has oversight, who can certify that those records were not falsely reported? This is precisely the problem with giving a dissembler and criminal a budget, isn’t it? Did you think he was going to provide reports of his own criminal activity?
That’s not, unbelievably, even the worst part – because it doesn’t make a whit of difference whether staff aides were paid by the county to work for “Public Advocate.” That’s because there isn’t any discernable difference between the “work” done as “Public Advocate” and the “work” done as “Sterling Supervisor.” It is the same activity. That’s why staff aides from other districts have been attending to the constituent needs of Sterling residents.
didn’t one of his aides also used to work at PA? Is this what you’re referencing? If that’s illegal, then why no charges?
Yes, I must be a bigot, since I’ve stated unequivocally here, twice, now thrice, that I think the civil benefits of marriage should be open to both straight and gay couples.
And what that had to do with John’s meander on the grand jury proceedings I still do not know, but I answered the question several times.
Speaking of which, DID you guys get to testify?
(and if you did, and are outraged that your predictions–stated as fact–did not come true, did you advocate for and help write the “unprecedented” report, and that’s why you’re flogging it so hard?)
The grand jury report stated that county business meetings were conducted at the PA office *because* the Sterling Supervisor mixed the two together.
Isn’t it interesting that Barbara always comes to Eugene’s defense and that Barbara repeats the same bigoted talking points as Tony Perkins. If she walks and talks like a bigot…
EPU, it seems impossible to engage in discussion on any topic on this blog without being accused of all kinds of things, unless one agrees exactly with whatever is being propounded.
It also seems that the vast majority of topics devolve into ranting about Delgaudio.
Back to my first comment, to John, on John’s thread here–it seems no one here is any longer making the accusation that a hate group was being run from county offices–the accusation that would be proved in court, and result in all kinds of things, also heralded as fact…before the fact of the grand jury procedure, which did not produce charges, because no existing law supports any at this time.
I can certainly understand wanting to assuage those expansive claims by retreating to the standard of attacking anyone who does not do as you say.
As I said to PD, your behavior is observable as well. Unfortunately, predictable, too.
Again folks, we are talking about objectively observable behavior.
Any time Eugene Delgaudio is criticized or his execrable conduct exposed, on this site or others, there is a very high likelihood that Barbara Munsey will show up – just as she did on this post – to make excuses and explanations for him; argue that what he did or said wasn’t really a big deal; argue that his detractors have misunderstood or misinterpreted him; attack, ridicule, or attempt to discredit those making the criticism or exposure; or all of the above. No one is making her do this. (Right?) Each time she engages in the behavior, it’s a choice.
The behavior is what it is. What I have done is to consistently call attention to it.
um, aeg, “unwilling or unable to admit this is a preposterous lie” seems not only sweeping, but accusatory (which makes me a “defender”, homophobe, etc).
I am unable to evaluate it, because I don’t follow his every move, and have no interest in doing so.
Repeat: if it’s just dropping off newsletters, yes, possible. If it is a good ole fashioned Southern jawbone visit, no.
And that makes me complicit in hate crimes for saying so.
On the asteroid that is Planet Agree or Die.
Is this Court?
I think EPU was looking for an educated guess. I don’t think that EPU is the one trying control language; to the contrary, I think it’s you, Barbara. You’ve taken his “do you think…?” question and extrapolated it to “total certitude that would pass muster in court.”
I’ll make an educated guess. My guess is no. No, he doesn’t visit a minimum of 300 to 500 homes daily. I lived in the Sterling District for five years and I never saw the guy, nor did I ever have a newsletter dropped off.
Let’s continue making educated guesses…
400 homes/day * 40 work weeks/year * 5 days/work week * 5 years = 400,000 home visits in 5 years. And zero to mine.
You wonder what’s going on in his brain to even make a statement like that. I suppose he thinks his supporters are gullible enough to believe it, or accept him at his word.
Nonsense, EPU. I don’t follow him around and have no intention of starting, so I’m unlikely to find out. There are townhouse and aparetment neighborhoods in Sterling, for all I know he goes by them regularly with his newssheets. (Hint: move there, it will be easier to track him 24-7.)
I am thus UNABLE to say with total certitude that would pass muster in court (third time–did you guys testify? Shall I cut and paste a redirect of your words onto you, claiming something nefarious is proved by you failure to answer the question yet?) whether he drops off over 300 newsletters per day in his district, and whether “day” means business days, and so on.
I remain UNWILLING to submit to your desire to totally control all langauge in relation to people outside of yourself, and arbit what it all means, and agree as to what it supposedly proves.
You are only master of your own universe, and I remain unconvinced that attempting to make it universal by fiat on the (much) larger world is a good thing (for the larger world–you can certainly spend your time however you wish).
There’s the answer to your question, then. You are unable or unwilling to admit that this is an obviously preposterous lie. This is an objective, observable, perfectly consistent behavior.
p.s.–did you gys testify?
I have no idea; if by “visit” he means walking blocks and putting newsletters at homes, could be. If it means come in, sit down, have a cup of coffee and discuss events, no. A mixture of the two, and a broad spectrum in between, is possible, but more heavily weighted toward delivering newsletters, I would think. Houses are closer together in Sterling than they are in your neck of the woods.
“’My routine for every day,’ Delgaudio said, ‘is I visit a minimum of 300 to 500 houses every day. I deliver a newsletter to each of these houses.'”
Barbara: Do you think this is true?
Again, EPU, as with my question to John, please show me where I “defended” Delgaudio?
(you keep using that word…I. Montoya etc)
It really doesn’t mean what you think it should mean outside of your personal asteroid: you want people to attack on cue at your direction. Anything else is a “defense”.
Absence of a negative still does not prove a positive, except for you, personally, in your individual postmodern reality.
And that’s fine–but as I’ve said to you many times before, you allow no one to define you. You might get more traction if you spent less time defining everyone else.
Behavior is observable, and it doesn’t lie. I don’t give much weight to what someone tells me they are (or are not, as the case may be). What I base my assessment of someone on is their behavior. For example, when someone reliably rushes to the defense of Eugene Delgaudio Each. And. Every. Time he is exposed as an amoral fraud – that demonstrates to me that they are a Eugene Delgaudio apologist and supporter, no matter how many times they complain that they don’t live in his district, or haven’t given him any money, or some other irrelevant attempt to derail. Actions trump empty words.
aeg, as I said to PD, maybe you can be on the next one.
try actually reading the report, and the L2Day editorial discussing it–courts function on law, and not coulda-shoulda, which is the sum total of the report at the end of the day, including the rec that people get informed, because they had their eyes opened (because they were NOT. informed).
Yes, PD, behavior is observable. Yours too! 😀 Keep projecting at will, and ignoring what YOU wish.
Pingback: A sci-fi version of “tolerance” – Loudoun Progress
Barbara,
Isn’t it convenient to “ignore” that to which one is guilty? I bet a lot of adulterers ignore a certain commandment. I don’t blame you for wishing to ignore away your own behavior. Unfortunately, behavior is observable.
The grand jury did not recommend that people learn the law. I’d expect a member of the Reform Commission to be a little more educated herself, especially while commenting on this sort of thing. Is this a typical level of knowledge for the members of the Commission? Scary.
But I digress.
They recommended that the state code be amended to make clear that anyone who works for or is elected to any government body is subject to the misuse of public assets statute.
They recommended that the law be changed “to make it less difficult to criminally prosecute a candidate who fails to report a significant donation.”
They recommended that people educate themselves about their Supervisor/local officials, as the grand jury process was “an eye-opening experience” for them.
I suspect that Eugene hopes the residents of the Sterling District remain ignorant about their Supervisor.
The grand jury, which admitted they knew little of the law, and also issued a recommendation that people learn it.
Not a technicality (Comp Plan sop by the “real” people, who have rural websites and spend 99% of their time kvetching about…the suburbs), just the law, as is.
So, still no charges.
I understand I’m supposed to do what you say, exactly as you say, in the proper words and so forth, but, no thanks.
I have to ask (and note, ASK, not accuse as if factual, then play word games to say it’s really really true even if it never happened), did you guys get to testify?
On the issue of how do we connect Supervisor Delgaudio to the time sheets, even the grand jury report, written by the arlington prosecutor answered that question .. . According to the Grand Jury, “Supervisor Delgaudio was the one responsible for certifying time and attendance records for his BOS aides.” Presumably, Mr. Delgaudio certified Ms. Mateer as working for the County when she was not.
Just an observation: If your “opinion” happens to be the same fantastical rhetoric promoted by a hysterical hate group, don’t be surprised when people suspect you of agreeing with the policy positions of said hate group.
The report by the Grand Jury was unequivocal. The evidence and testimony confirms that Delgaudio did the things of which he was accused. The only obstacle is a loophole in the law (and there’s an interesting article in the Blue Ridge Leader by Mary Bathory Vidaver that suggests how the law turned out that way) that appears to permit certain local officials to steal from the taxpayers in exactly this manner. Apparently Barbara thinks it’s fine – because it’s Eugene Delgaudio doing it.
I suspect it’s not a coincidence that this exact loophole was written into the law. Perhaps a more detailed history will come to light.
There’s more than one way to skin a cat, however, and this doesn’t excuse the “inability” of the CA to identify other violations of VA code. Timesheet fraud should be unlawful under more than one statute, for example, regardless of who the guilty party is. I’m not surprised that conclusive evidence wasn’t found of co-mingling the financials of the Supervisor’s office and “Public Advocate,” however. A person would have to be a moron of epic proportions to leave evidence of that, and no one has accused Mr. Delgaudio of being a moron.
PD, I ignored your rant about Perkins, because he is the equivalent of your Rush Limbaugh. I listen to neither of them, and my opinion is just that. The SPLC may be your imprimatur of choice, but they are a huckstering fundraiser that hypes for the purpose of raising money that keeps Dees in his lavish lifestyle. Why, much as you feel about Delgaudio–lolol.
EPU, as I replied to John, none of that was proven, was it? Funny that an attorney and two supposed social justice advocates not only espouse “guilty until proven innocent, and guilty anyway if no charges are filed”.
I am enjoying the workout the word “technicality” is getting in the rant-o-sphere, much as it did from some of the same folks when the Comp Plan was thrown out in court. As I also said to John, citizens should learn more about government, and then they might find out that in state code, some electeds (very few) are “full time”, and most are not.
As to the ethics code, remember Dillon? They can pass any policy they want (even if they don’t pass exactly what you want), and it will not have a lot of teeth beyond doing what it already does: provide material for the politically angry to attempt to inflate into crime.
As it was not proven that that’s what he did, and as he is not in my district, I’m not going to sharpen my pitchfork. remember way back when at the beginning, I said “let’s wait and see what the results of Stamos are”? Well, she didn’t seek charges because legally none apply, and the jurors urged changes that the GA may or may not take up–which is a long process in VA if it involves changing the constitution.
Now the hue-and-cry is that he used tax dollars to fund his campaign chest? That may get more actual traction than the previous claim about using tax dollars to run Public Advocate, and it should if you can actually ever prove it.
Meanwhile, who sent the link to the Delgaudio recall petition to the Blue Ridge Leader? Sounds like maybe they could be on a grand jury!
I can understand why Barbara would prefer to not share how she feels about this. In fact, the grand jury unequivocally states that Mr. Delgaudio directly violated the county’s code of conduct by billing the county for fundraising for his political campaigns performed by his aides, and that only an odd loophole in the law is shielding him from criminal prosecution. It continues to be true, as it has always been true, that Barbara will not, cannot, utter a critical word concerning Mr. Delgaudio. This is one of life’s little mysteries.
And by the way Barbara, you may have missed the fact that I said you are using the same arguments used by Tony Perkins, head of the FRC, an SPLC-designated anti-gay hate group. I didn’t call you a bigot. I demonstrated that you behave like one.
Divorce “activists” will be forcing the Catholic church to marry them, first. And anti-Jewish “activists” will force rabbis to marry them second. Good luck to all of them.
Government reform is a continuous process. Citizens don’t need a “reform commission” to participate.
PD, if I were acting in the mode common here, I would not have qualified the statement, but made it as sweeping and accusatory as possible, while claiming it to be some deep conspiratorial fact.
Much as Sandra Fluke enrolled at Georgetown for the express purpose of suffering under, politicizing, and attempting to change their policies, I’ve no doubt that SOME (see that limiting, qualifying word there?) activists might indeed think it worthwhile to do things for the purpose of a lawsuit that might advance an individual (see, that’s another word that limits the scope of the opinion) agenda.
I see no one is answering the question on whether SOME might think it worthwhile to attempt to limit the civil acknowledgement of religious ceremonies to those institutions that perform ALL ceremonies.
And yes, IMO (see, another qualifier), SOME might find that a worthy use of their time to attempt to pursue.
As to the GRC, maybe some day there will be another, and you will be appointed to that one. Still rankles, apparently, for which you have my sympathy.
Speaking of “olio of unsupported flights of fancy stated as fact–no hon”:
I read a similar hyper-ventilating ceremony-obsessed track from the FRC’s Tony Perkins. What is it with the ceremonies? Marriage lasts a lifetime. The ceremony is an event and it can be a very expensive one. Why is there so much talk of the ceremony and why would a couple want to spoil their wedding by attempting to hold it at an unwelcoming church? Why would anybody who knows the law advise a couple to try to do so? This prognostication is so far out, it’s orbital. No, it’s outside the solar system, maybe even the universe.*
I will say one thing about the grand jury report. It provided much more in the way of government reforms than the GRC ever did.
*But dumb people do dumb things all the time. Jay Leno has a “what did you think was going to happen?” segment and there are tons of examples caught on video. Some couple might walk into an anti-gay church and demand a wedding. That wouldn’t make the prognostication valid. No “activist” with any brains (and credibility) is going to do that.
Another olio of unsupported flights of fancy stated as fact–no hon, I mean modern activist political lawyers such as yourself, who I do not place in founding father category but in special interest ambulance chaser condition.
back to slavery? Nice try, but no.
You’re being deliberately obtuse for effect, perhaps?
I’ll see if I can’t make my position very simple: anyone getting married in church who wishes to have the civil benefits of marriage accrue to that action MUST register with the government ALREADY. Religious marriages still need licenses, etc (already said several times, but I understand you don’t listen, you just talk).
The licenses should be available to all couples, IMO.
However, just as no church can come to any random gay couple and tell them they can’t be a couple of their own free will, no random gay couple can go to any random church and tell them they MUST perform a religious ceremony for them, if it goes against the church’s beliefs.
Those who do not choose a church ceremony are not FORCED to also have one, are they? When they get their license, they can simply have the civil process right there at the courthouse, right? Without being forced to go get a ceremony and a document from a church before the government recognizes it as legal?
Of COURSE there are churches that support same sex marriage, and perform them.
That’s THEIR BUSINESS.
It is also my opinion that once the civil licensing and recognition is unifrmly available, the next step for SOME activists will be to attempt to force all churches to perform all ceremonies. (The government can’t simply not recognize marriages from noncompliant churches, since they ALREADY require civil licensing—or can they? I’ll stay tuned. 😀 )
You don’t like lawyers and what they’ve done to government, really? Not Jefferson, Adams. Not Lincoln. Nor do you think they should be paid for their services. So you’re a socialist? I’m not sure socialists or communists think you should work for free. But there was slavery. No one was concerned about paying slaves. As for marriage, religion has nothing to do with government. No one’s telling a church what to do. But there are pastors, priests, reverends and other religious who support same sex marriage and conduct matrimonial services.
John, as I said (Mr. $80K counselor–don’t get me started on what lawyers have done to government), civil and religious marriage are intertwinded in government–religious marriages are already recognized on the civil side, BUT the civil cannot and should not dictate what the religious recognizes within its own denominations. That’s why civil should be open to all; everyone seems to forget, when ranting about the supposed constitutional dictum on “the separation of church and state”, that government should stay out of religion. It’s actually a TWO way street, counselor.
I’m sorry, I thought no charges were forthcoming from the exhaustive grand jury process? Was Delgaudio convicted of what you state?
No, but don’t let that stop you.
Ham and egger! lolol
So Barbara, you support civil unions but not same sex marriages, right? How do you feel about public officials taking tax dollars to underwrite their political campaigns, as Mr. Delgaudio did?
Why no, John, as you see, I did not–I was apparently writing while you were tsking.
Sorry, but I didn’t see your post until this a.m.–next time I’ll run right over to see if I owe you some answers! 😀
John, are you talking about civil or religious marriage? The fact that the two are commingled may be useful in extreme activism, and I have concerns on that front that I’ll come back to after stating that I think the civil state and benefits of marriage should be available to any two consenting adults (who aren’t siblings, etc–that day may come, and it will be a sight to see, just as the polygamists are now ramping up for their own marriage equality), same or opposite sex.
Your second question is stupid (sorry, but it is) grandstanding–I believe people are born straight or gay, and that telling someone who to be attracted to is pointless, and that (see answer to first question) any two consenting adults should have the freedom to do as they wish with one another (barring BD/SM practices that lead to death, etc, but again, that’s a situation subsequent to the basic fact–two consenting adults having a relationship is their business).
Back to marriage: I’m very sorry that some activists chose to eschew the idea of civil union as something completely unacceptable on “separate but equal” grounds, because I also believe government has no business telling churches what they can or cannot believe. Are not all religious marriages also sanctioned as civil marriages? i was married in church, but there was government paperwork to do too, a license to obtain, etc.
I think that license should be available to any/all adult couples. I hope that, with the increasing availability of that license to same sex couples, that some in the activist community to not then use the license as a bludgeon to attempt to force a religious acceptance on the church of their choice.
And I’ve no doubt that day will come, but just as government has no business telling two adults whether or not they should love/be attracted/be committed to one another, neither should government move in the direction of telling churches what to profess.
Clear?
Barbara, tsk, tsk, you ducked the question. Do you support same sex marriage. Same sex sex? You’re a ham and egger.
Well, John, you called it. I thought at the time that you were being overly paranoid in light of the overwhelming portrayals of CA Stamos as a “straight shooter,” etc. But I don’t believe it’s possible for the VA code to be that anemic. This was a choice, a choice that understandably outraged the members of the grand jury – who, after all, saw the evidence. God bless them for taking the highly unusual step they did so that the public can see the truth.
Of course “retiring Delgaudio’s campaign debt” was as fraudulent a fundraising purpose as was the “football league,” since there was no campaign debt. “Public Advocate” is itself a predatory fraud; the only purpose to which its donations are put is to generate more donations to pay Mr. Delgaudio’s salary.
The commingling of county resources and “Public Advocate” activities is comprehensive within the Sterling supervisor’s office, a violation supposedly addressed by the after-the-fact adoption of a policy prohibiting the employment of county aides by a supervisor’s private business. That won’t stop Delgaudio from using our public property for his private purposes, it will only make it slightly less convenient for him. Only removing him from office will do that.
Tell me Barbara, do you support same sex marriage? Also, do you support an individual’s right to be gay and to have sex with a person of the same sex?
John, again, you are projecting, as seems to be the norm in progressive circles. What defense? I understand that by calling me a homophobe and ascribing behavior to me, if I don’t deny it with proof acceptable to you (which will never exist on this or any other planet–lol), then I must be what you say, no matter how unsupported or outlandish the charges. Have you ever considered using your “gift” of Blarney in any way that is positive?
Who we support, Barbara, and to what ends, tells everyone who we are. You are defending a gay bashing bigoted member of the Board of Supervisors who stole taxpayer dollars for campaigns instead of county business. If you were indifferent, I wouldn’t know your views. Because you rush to Delgaudio’s defense says something about your beliefs – all bad. Defending a confederate soldier statute that reflects disunion, lawlessness, and slavery also defines who you are. Write, scribble, publish what you believe so many more people may know who you are and what you stand for.
John, where did I bash anyone? I commented on your article, reprinted at LTM, too–lol. Commenting on your opinions on statuary does not make me a slaveholder or supportive of same, and commenting on your charges here does not make me guilty of hate crimes against the LGBT community or any of its individual members.
Continue to project, transfer, and froth at will.
I belong to no party, and have not for 10 years.
They are not saying anything. I restricted my comments to the sorry effort of the Arlington Prosecutor and took, even what she grudgingly included in her report, to show how totally anorexic were her efforts. But as you share his gay bashing bigoted agenda you would support him no matter what were the facts when he is a shameful representation without regard to party.
John, I see that the proprieters of this blog are no longer claiming that he was raising funds for Public Advocate, and would be charged and jailed for that when the investigation was concluded.
Now that the highly respected Democratic CA of Arlington has concluded the investigation and no charges are forthcoming, I guess it makes sense to steer in a different direction.
Leesburg Today had an interesting take on it in their editorial: they seemed somewhat shocked that the citizens serving on the jury admitted they had no idea what the laws were, and how they applied, and agreed with their recommendation that citizens learn more about government.