Bob Marshall: Virginia’s “chief homophobe”

The so-called Marriage Amendment, Ballot Issue #, actually bears his name. But just who is Bob Marshall? In this article, we get a glimpse of the man “who refers to himself as Virginia’s ‘chief homophobe.'”

“There is a natural order of things, a natural order where gay marriage is an impossibility,” he said, books tucked under his arm and waving a hand for emphasis, like the disheveled college professor he often resembles. “For example, a woman’s arm is constructed at a certain angle so that she can adequately cradle a baby. This is the way we’re created. There are just certain things that nature intended.”

Who knew that a woman’s arm was constructed to hold a baby? Guess you better tell all those fathers out there that their arms were not constructed that way.

For nearly 15 years, Marshall, one of the conservative state’s most conservative lawmakers, has been wielding a heavy stick marked with his brand of moral and religious certainty.

Recall I said earlier that this was an attempt to impose a certain morality on the rest of us? Who died and put Bob Marshall in charge of the morality police?

Marshall’s critics said what they see in his push for the amendment is what they have always seen from him: an effort to thrust his narrow view of religion into law — in this case, in conflict with the religious freedoms that they say the state constitution enshrines.

“He will go to any lengths to promote his religious view, and I think that’s dangerous. He’s doing the same thing with this marriage amendment,” said Del. Katherine B. Waddell (I-Richmond), who clashed with Marshall for several years when she was the state chair for a national Republican abortion rights group. “He’s imposing his own religious views onto us. That’s exactly what he’s doing. He’s interjecting his religion into legislating.”

Yep. That’s kind what we have been saying. But that’s not all.

Marshall dismisses such attacks with characteristic aplomb. But he also describes tussles with his opponents in the same way he talks about his days of getting into schoolyard brawls: “Once you’re in the battle, you never give up. Never.”

Hear that folks? Bob Marshall has no intention of stopping his crusade to inject his definition of morality into our laws. Tell me, Mr. Marshall. Who should be next? Blacks? Women?

All of these folks around here in the Virginia blogsphere are claiming that they are not homophobes, yet their leader calls himself the “chief homophobe.” All of you know that this amendment isn’t about stopping “activist judges” (as yet unseen in Virginia) , it isn’t about “protecting marriage” (from what I have yet to figure out) – it is about bigotry, pure and simple.

Tell Bob Marshall to take his bigotry back to his native DC. Vote NO on Ballot Issue #1.

Technorati Tags: ,

Advertisements

38 thoughts on “Bob Marshall: Virginia’s “chief homophobe”

  1. Enlightenment — back to personal attacks, eh? However, you did manage to answer my question, which is more than BS did. Thank you. However, you do ask for more than tolerance — you ask for sanction. That’s what the lawsuits in other states are all about — demanding state sanction for your relatioinships.

    For the record, I oppose anti-gay violence.

    BS — You’re contradicting yourself. “Much of the general population has had much more gay encounters than they like to admit.” (I think you meant “MANY more,” but that’s OK.) You make this assertion based on reports that used surveys — so the people were admitting to it!

  2. Jack,
    U digrus wid ur grammatekal korrections, but u kon reed de massage und gut da pint. My post was a result of a quickly written response at 5am this morning. I did answer your question by bringing to your attention that their is a larger percentage and degree today of closeted gay activity than one might realize. Yes, this was an extensive anonymous survey report. AND the answer to my question…

  3. Enlightenment — which basic human rights would that be?

    BS — Which question? About “closeted hetrosexuals?” I don’t think there are any people hiding their heterosexuality, but there are certainly heterosexuals who hide their sexual activity (such as adultery).

    Let us say there are more homosexuals than I think. What does it matter?

  4. Who cares if he is a homophobe? Does everyone have to like homos? Is it wrong to dislike them? No, it is your human given right to dislike certain things or disagree with certain aspect. There is nothing wrong with disliking those who are gay. Why is it wrong? Everyday people dislike those who have body oder but we don’t consider that as being wrong. Stop trying to politicize one’s preference for your gains

  5. Its okay to not like certain folks for certain things but it is totally wrong to introduce legislature pointed directly at the folks you don’t like. Sort of like legislation that prohibits whites and black marrying each other because you didn’t care for blacks and you REALLY didn’t care for the fact that races were mixing. It wasn’t that long ago that Virginia had this legislation on the books. Perhaps Mr. Marshall thinks no one recognizes his legislation as thinly veiled assults on certain citizens of the state. Way to go, Bob!

  6. Bob Marshall is merely attempting to stop the hemmoraging of life from our culture, which is clearly dying. Unfortunately, historians, sociologists and archaelogists say we do not learn from history, so it is too late. Those who push promiscuity and abortion (Planned Parenthood), homosexuality (GLAAD, PRIDE, LAMBDA and NOW) have won. We are in a tailspin of a decline.

    Sociologist Carl Wilson noted that history reveals that nations decline and eventually
    die when sexual immorality becomes rampant and the
    traditional family is discarded in favor of group sex, homosexuality,
    infidelity, and unrestrained sexual hedonism.
    (Today, traditional families where you have a mom, a dad and a kid or two, only represents 17% of all “families.”)

    Wilson pointed to the writings of British anthropologist J. D. Unwin,
    whose 1934 book, Sex and Culture, chronicled the historical
    decline of numerous cultures. Unwin studied 86 different
    cultures throughout history and discovered a surprising fact: No
    nation that rejected monogamy in marriage and pre-marital sexual
    chastity lasted longer than a generation after it embraced
    sexual hedonism.

    Unwin stated it this way, “In human records
    there is no instance of a society retaining its energy after a complete
    new generation has inherited a tradition which does not
    insist on prenuptial and postnuptial continence.”

    Unwin found that nations that valued traditional marriage and
    sexual abstinence were creative and flourished. He described
    this as “cultural energy” that can only be maintained when sexual
    activities remain restricted within marriage.

    Harvard University Sociologist Pitirim Sorokin, in The American Sex Revolution,
    found essentially the same thing when he examined sexual immorality
    as it relates to cultural decline. Sorokin noted in the
    late 60’s that America was committing “voluntary suicide”
    through unrestrained sexual indulgence. He observed that as
    individuals began engaging in pre-marital sex unrelated to marriage,
    the birth rate would decline and our nation would be
    slowly depopulated. He predicted an increase in divorce, desertion,
    and an epidemic of sexual promiscuity resulting in a rise
    in illegitimate children. His predictions, unfortunately, have
    come true.
    Sorokin’s study of decadent cultures convinced him that a
    healthy society can only survive if strong families exist and
    sexual activities are restricted to within marriage. Sexual promiscuity
    leads inevitably to cultural decline and eventual collapse.

    One can only hope that against all odds, the U.S. wakes up and reverses its decline
    before we are added to the number of civilizations that prefer sexual promiscuity than
    self discipline and productivity.

    Thanks for trying Bob Marshall, but you can be sure that all the gay advocates will be
    screaming until they are blue in the face.

    Too bad we cannot see just how health a “homophobic” society is…not fear of the homosexual, but fear of pushing a culture where the focus is on butt holes and not on
    true progressive aspirations such as using science and technology to help the less
    fortunate.

  7. You can have relatives who are homosexual who you love and would die for, but do not support their desire to put a penis in an asshole and any other hole.

    If homophobic describes people who fear that spreading this choice of lifestyle will do to the fabric of our society, then homophobia is a very healthy thing.

    Even Plato in The Laws wrote that “homosexuality is death to society.” When the focus becomes sexual pleasure at all costs, whether it means disrupting a family for a man at the office, getting pregnant and killing it, males turning to males, females turning to females, it results in the crumbling of values and ultimately the crumbling of society.

    Homophobia is truly a very healthy idea for society–it doesn’t mean to hurt or to hate the one who suffers from homosexual tendencies. All it means is that as a homophobic, you do not want to decieve the next generation in promoting the lifestyle as healthy when clearly we know it is not.

    Until the mid-1990s, it was a psychological disorder. And I can tell you from personal experience, all the relatives and friends I have had who are homosexual are mentally unstable. My heart goes out to them. All I can say, is, but for the grace of God there go I. We have to treat the homosexual as a member of our family, one who we love. But that does not mean we should embrace their lifestyle or encourage it through gay pride days etc.

Comments are closed.