There's so much hypocrisy and flip flopping when it comes to Jeannemarie Devolites Davis, it's hard to know where to start. Suffice it to say that this lifelong Republican, who used to call herself the "family values" candidate, now is trying to run to the left of her Democratic opponent, Chap Petersen. Devolites Davis even goes so far as to proudly call herself a "RINO" (Republican in Name Only). Yeah, that's really going to excite her "base" to show up and vote for her in 34 days.Another part of Devolites Davis' "strategy," if one can call it that, is to attack Chap Petersen's church. As the Washington Post reports this morning:
...At the [Equality Fairfax] debate, Davis offered a long criticism of Petersen's membership at Truro Church, which was among 11 Virginia congregations that left the Episcopal Church last year in part because they viewed it as too permissive on such issues as homosexuality.
There's only one problem:
...Davis's record is complicated, too. She has attended church dinners at Truro Church and sponsored a 5K church race. Davis attends a Catholic church, and the religion has strict views about homosexuality, as Osborne of the Virginia Partisans said.
Is that all clear now? Let's summarize: Jeannemarie Devolites Davis is a Republican RINO politician who supported opposed supported the abuser fees; opposed supported flip-flopped on the Tysons Tunnel; was was not used to claim to be a "family values" candidate but is now frantically courting the GLBT vote; attacks Truro Church for being anti-gay even though she's been heavily involved with it, currently sponsoring the church's 5K race; and much much more!
Is that all clear as mud? Yeah, I thought it would be.
If you'd like to hear it firsthand for yourself, check out the audio recording by clicking here.
Also, recordings are available for the event intro, the first session with Janet Oleszek, and the last session with George Barker.
Enjoy, and let us know what you think with some comments on the site.
More than one might think!
But the question does remain---yeah, what is your point? Chap and JMDD are identical on our issues, with the exception that JMDD had not renounced her support of the Marshall-Newman amendment as Chap has.
Also, at least Chap is honest and consistent about our issues no matter where he talks, unlike JMDD. JMDD does score for being a bit more comfortable and sympathetic to the plight of our community, but I think it's not enough to negate the difference in positions, small as it may be. Also, as was discussed at the forum, control of the chamber may mean a huge difference in what bills on our issues go anywhere.
Doug, I'd note that secularists (agnostics, atheists, etc.) have the highest tolerance levels. Evangelicals have the lowest. Mainstream religions are in the middle. Also note that there is a strong correlation between education and tolerance.
And remember that the Truro church aligned itself with an African entity that has been in favor of imprisoning gays. This isn't just an issue of marriage rights, etc., but of following the moral leadership of a group whose position is that gays should be treated like caged animals. So the analogy to Catholics, etc., doesn't hold.
I don't know anything about the candidate's personal beliefs, but ask yourself -- should one support a candidate that belonged to the KKK or the American Nazi Party and give him the pass that "he was raised in it?" Or perhaps says he doesn't necessarily believe in the organization's principles? What? They like the fellowship?
Religious affiliation historically has been a cover for all sorts of evil positions, yet we're supposed to look the other way just because there's a "church" tag? Nope.
I wouldn't vote for Davis, and I hope she loses, but membership in the Truro Church, or similar hotbeds of intolerance, should be enough of a reason not to support a candidate.
First, the point is, there is actually a wide variation in all religious denominations, from congregation to congregation, in how they view GLBT people, our relationships, and how they relate to them in church life. The fact that someone attends a church know for less than open-minded attitudes does not make a candidate anti-gay.
Second, my personal opinions aside, my main point is that the control of the chamber will be far more important than where Chap goes to church. Chap has renounced his support of the Marshall-Newman amendment in 2005, and voted against it in 2006, and at our forum, even stated "I'm not proud of every vote I've ever made" and "I want to talk about the future". With a Democratic leadership in the Virginia Senate, pro-gay bills will be introduced and make it to the floor. Right now, that does NOT happen. Chap is a Democrat.
The church he belongs to, and has all his life, is not the issue. Insinuating that Chap should not be supportive because of the church he attends and some of the attitudes they espouse, is for starters, unfair. At worst, comparing that church to the KKK or the American Nazi Party is outrageous and offensive.
Chap's church HAS NOT argued that gays should be imprisoned, and if you are arguing that they would because they voted to leave the Episcopal church, you're stretching something big time. They do not hate gays. They're not completely comfortable and of course in my opinion they have a lot to learn. But to insinuate that the church is advocating something approaching ethnic cleansing is really, really offensive.
Furthermore, Chap's statements on fairness and supporting many of our community's goals stand on their own.
So, thank you for your thoughts PM, but you need to check your extreme exaggerations and unfair insinuations.
Suffice it to say there are MANY, MANY parishes in all major religions who would be welcoming of their national churches adopting an inclusive and tolerant attitude about gays in church life and government.
Further evidence of the Post's stalking for JMDD is their statement that Chap's record has something to do with his LG campaign. That's pure JMDD. Everyone seems to forget that Chap knocked off an long-term, very powerful and entrenched Republican incumbent in 2001. Back then, Fairfax County voted for Bush and George Allen. His HOD district voted heavily for George Bush in 2000 (I'm not sure about 2004). Chap made no bones about running as a conservative Democrat. He has been consistent from Day #1 - JMDD on the other hand is the one who has been a participant in Extreme Makeover and/or is in full spin mode on her true record.
All of these Democratic votes we've picked up lately - the ones in play - are not hard core Democratic ideologues. They are moderates. They are frustrated with the Republican Party inability to govern, but they are not universally with the Democratic Party on social issues, etc.
In any event, the Post needs to should be focused on Fairfax's other races. Watching JMDD play Twister is entertaining, but the other races are the ones that are going to really matter in the end.
I agree they are mostly not Democratic ideologues, I just think we may disagree what constitutes "moderate" or "mainstream" these days.
George Barker was fantastic at the forum, as was Janet Oleszek, and I hope more folks take a listen to them both at all the forums, including the podcast audio available at Equality Fairfax's blog.
In other words, Peterson's deeds speak louder than his words. Gay Virginians should bear this in mind as they consider the extent to which he merits support.
Chap's critics who have commented on this thread earlier question whether Chap deserves "support." I'm not sure if by that they mean whether Chap deserves something above and beyond votes, such as contributions in money or services.
On these issues alone, there seem to be three really good reasons to vote for Chap: 1) Chap's own positions which aren't wholly liberal but seem to be to the left of his own church; 2) the endorsement of Chap by a group sensitive to these issues; and, 3) the positions of the Democratic Party of which Chap is a member.
I think Chap will represent us on these issues in accord with his stated positions and not those of his church. I think Jeannemarie mentioning Chap's church says more about her character than any sincere belief on her part that her occupying the seat for another four years will be better for those who care about these issues.
The ESCUSA, being an independant organization which DOES NOT take orders from the Church of England (we're not colonials anymore after all) decided to consecrate an openly gay bishop. This and other more liberal pronouncements of ECUSA is why Truro left to become part of the Nigerian Church.
Truro was an Episcopal Church, and part of the ECUSA before it left to allign itself with a TOTALLY SEPARATE CHURCH (in Nigeria).
Saying that ESUSA and the Nigerian Church are both a part of the Church of England and implying that the Church of England is somehow an umbrella organization governing both is simply incorrect.
You can do a Google News Search to read about the history of all this if you need further explanation.
As long as I'm again speculating about things I know little about, it also seems to me that the alliance between Truro (and the other U.S. churches that left ECUSA) and the Nigerian Church may have something to do with the size, wealth, and long-term prospects of the Nigerian Church. They may both agree that gay people shouldn't become bishops, but I bet the U.S. churches would resist the enactment here of the strong anti-gay policies that the Nigerian Church wants enacted in Nigeria and vice versa.
In any event, no matter how ignorant I remain on this religion (these religions?) Chap's continued membership in a church that is opposed to ordaining gay people as bishops and that has allied in some way with a Church in a country in which gay people have a lot more to worry about than whether a gay person may become a bishop has nothing to do with his being a better choice for State Senator than Jeannemarie, even on gay issues.