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: ,


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

  1. Jack – Your comment No. 14 to me doesn’t even make any sense.

    Webb is trying to keep unmarried women from having in vitro fertilization? I had NO idea! (sarcasm alert)

  2. Actually, my primary purpose is to get more traffic on the sites. My secondary purpose is to give you an apoplexy. I may be small-minded, but you cannot seem to come up with any counters to the arguments from my tiny little mind, so you resort to personal attacks.

    You may very well be correct that “anachronisms like [me] will shrink to ever smaller parts of the population.” However, I don’t see it yet. Democrats dominated politics for 40 years, and now Republicans do. The Republicans will probably lose seats tomorrow, and perhaps even control of the House and Senate. But the loss will be far less than the historical norm for a 6th year midterm election. (The Republicans even GAINED seats in the last midterm, which is almost unheard of.) The Democrats should be doing much better, but they aren’t. Why is that? Because they do not represent the majority of the people anymore.

    Look at VA. How long did Democrats control the General Assembly? The Republicans took control for the first time in history in 1999, and are still in power.

    You may, eventually, be proven right, but the current trend is against you. (You might also note that the type of society you desire existed in Greece 2000 years ago. Perhaps you are the anachronism.)

  3. I find it interesting in all of this that with the hundreds of visitors I have each day, only Jack sees fit to defend Bob Marshall.

    I am not a homophobe, although I disagree with your goals
    What goals would those be? Oh, I guess you’re talking about the “homosexual agenda.” Will somebody please provide a link to that agenda so that I can get on board with it?

    The only goals that any group has is to be treated as equals, deservedly so as productive taxpayers in our country. Those who deny that are indeed homophobes, just as those who attempted to deny blacks such full participation were (are?) racists.

  4. The “homosexual agenda,” as defined by Justice Scalia, is “directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct.”

    As I understand it, Jack, although I think he sincerely believes himself to not be anti-gay, thinks that this moral opprobrium ought to be maintained. He believes that living one’s life with honesty and integrity is a choice – which of course it is. We could alternatively choose to live lives of dishonesty, pretending to be something that we are not in order to satisfy Jack (or what Jack would term God). In my view, that would be the immoral choice.

    As I said, I think he is sincere. He simply doesn’t see his beliefs about us as animus, because he doesn’t see us as complete human beings. Here’s an example. In response to an explanation of how not having certain legally recognized partnership rights harms my family, Jack suggested that I could “just move somewhere else, where you can have them.” As if I have no personhood apart from my sexual orientation and the fact that I am in a committed same-sex partnership. I am, to him, just the embodiment of “the homosexual agenda,” not a real person. Agendas can perhaps “just move somewhere else.” Real people tend to have careers, elderly parents, homes, and other compelling reasons to live in a particular place.

    Yes, Jack; my “goal” is to be seen and treated as what I am; just another human being like you. Isn’t that just horrible?

  5. Just curious, (I have mentioned this elsehwere, too), if your homosexuality is not a choice, but is genetic, why are there so many homosexuals in prison, and why are therenot more homosexual Greeks? Is bestiality genetic, too?

  6. For the same reason that there are so many gay people living lives of dishonesty in fraudulent heterosexual marriages. Both they and their partners deserve more out of life.

    Also, you make the rather common mistake of confusing genetic with biological.

  7. I honestly do not understand. What is the difference between genetic and biological? I know that things like the mother’s alcohol and diet can affect the child in utero. Is that what you mean?

  8. Jack
    Just curious, if the Kinsey figures are right, then you still have many more closeted gay Republican friends than you might care to admit. What attracts these types (Foley/Haggard) to the Republican Party?

  9. BS — a very good question.

    Please provide a link to that report — I’d like to read it. In the meantime, I’ll accept your assertion. (I assume you mean that there is a higher percentage of gay politicians in the Republican Party than in the Democratic Party?)

    Pathological behavior is, by definition, difficult to explain. People like Foley may know that their pedophilia is wrong, and fell driven to make the expression of that desire harder, so that they are less likely to fall victim to it.

    I am purely guessing here. I have studied law, physics, mathematics, and statistics, but my knowledge of psychology and biology are very limited.

    On the non-pathological side, we have the Log Cabin Republicans, who seem to me to be more Libertarian than Republican. (Go to Rick Sincere’s website and ask him. He can do the question much more justice than I can.) The Libertarian Party, however, is a dead end — not because of it’s own failings, but because of the winner-take-all system we have in the United States. As such, I suspect the Log Cabin Republicans take what they consider to be the lesser of the two evils, and try to work from the inside to move the party in the direction they want.

  10. Just Google “Kinsey Reports”, but I’m sure you’ve already done that. The two book report focuses on various aspects of human sexuality. In the area of sexual orientation, the report claims that 10% of the population is gay. If these figures are taken at value, then 10% of the people in a general population group are gay. Naturally, that only applies to general population groups – not specific groups like the Gay Democrats or Log Cabin Republicans. I’m not saying there are more gay Republicans than Democrats, but I suspect you have more gay *closeted* Republicans in the party than you might realize.
    Again though, back to my question. I don’t know the answer but remain curious as to the motivating dynamics and am interested in other opinions.. BUT this is getting off topic. Perhaps this can be another topic after the election.

  11. Actually, I hadn’t “Googled” the reports, I thought you were referring to something more recent. (Since Google’s China decision, I have been using I have now “asked” about them, and Wikipedia says that that 10% number is for American males “more or less exclusively homosexual for at least three years between the ages of 16 and 55.” This kind of goes with that “flow of sexuality” theory, which is counter to the assertion that homosexual behavior is not a choice.

    Anyway, let us accept the 10% number for the sake of argument. I suspect you are right about the “closeted” gays in the Republican Party. There can be many reasons. Their homosexuality may simply not be the most important concern. Perhaps their concern for the nation outweighs their personal desires. Perhaps they believe that their homosexual desires are wrong, and, as Foley, work to put as many barriers between them and temptation as possible.

    Again, it’s all guesswork. It is impossible to determine any man’s motivations. One can only judge his actions.

    T(If a man is gay, but does not engage in homosexual activity, is he still a closeted homosexual?)

  12. Jack – I don’t find most of what you post even worth acknowledgement having come (along with others on this blog) to the conclusion that you are nothing more than a bigot and a homophobe. The one saving grace for you is that you are willing to ask questions, and presumably then, you haven’t closed your mind and have the potential to learn, and yes, become enlightened. I hope that if nothing else you have come to see that the people who oppose this amendment are just that – people. They (we) want nothing more than tolerance.

  13. Jack – do you really want to know what it is to be closeted? Try going one day, just one, and imagine that you can’t talk about the person you are married to, the person you love (assuming that you have such a person) to anyone. If someone asks you how she is – don’t answer. If you want to call her – do it in private where you can’t be heard. If you want to hold her hand, brush the hair off her face – oops sorry, don’t even THINK about it. That’s what being in the closet is. Fortunately, for you, you can play this game and experiment to see what it is like to be marginalized and discriminated against and then just forget all about it. We can’t. We don’t have that privilege. Fear, silence, invisibility is what being in the closet is about. It is the fear of being who we are for fear that people like you will continue to reinforce the socially constructed myth that there is something wrong with us. It is the fear of getting screamed at for being who we are. It is the fear of getting our heads bashed in because of who we are. It is the fear of getting killed because of who we are. Do you think this is a joke? Do you think this isn’t real? I can assure that it is very real. Every day, I walk down the street, buy groceries in this town, work and play in this community realizing that all these things are a heart beat away. Know why? Because of intolerance, hatred and bigotry! Because homophobia is alive and well and being proposed as an addition to our constitution.

  14. Read on, Jack. The report further goes on to talk about other groups with limited gay encounters. So you’ll see that much of the general population has had much more gay encounters than they like to admit.

    Just curious, If a man is straight, but does not engage in heterosexual activity, is he considered a closeted heterosexual?

Comments are closed.