Gay/Liberal Misbehavior

| | Comments (67) | TrackBacks (0)

Homosexual activists, behaving badly, provide a rich heritage of inappropriate behavior which I submit is one of the main reasons their various causes garner such poor support from the public at large. Sometimes they are flat out idiots, and other times just unpleasant. (So what is the deal with going after children? Do you have to be gay to understand that angle? I don't get it at all. You are ripping on the kid for supporting marriage. Your effort almost perfectly obliterates your goal, geniuses. MOST PARENTS WANT THEIR KIDS TO MARRY SOMEONE OF THE OPPOSITE SEX. Ridiculing this girl certainly helps stamp you as an organization opposed to what most people believe.)

It will come as no great surprise that some local families had a bad experience this past Tuesday.

Here is a first-hand report from a Loudoun County mother, detailing what she and her kids had to deal with on election day:

November 11, 2006

Children and the Democratic Way

Every Election Day, I and my four daughters (ages 7, 9, 12, and 14) go to vote. They of course can't vote, because the oldest is only fourteen years old. But they do get an exercise in one of our greatest freedoms as Americans. This year was a little different. I received a call one day before Election Day and was invited to handout fliers supporting the Marriage Amendment for the State of Virginia, at the Lovettsville precinct, located in Loudoun County, Virginia. I am neither a member of the Democrat Party or the Republican Party. But I am a new Christian, and I would consider myself conservative. I jumped at the chance to engage my daughters in the political process. I, like many people, have high hopes and aspirations for my children. I received a bundle of fliers and distributed the bundle among myself, my four daughters, and one young child who is a good friend of my daughters. They faithfully lined up, beaming faces, ready to greet all and provide a flier to anyone who wanted one. My daughters exhibited enthusiasm at the simple task of saying, "sample ballot, sir/madam" and "Vote yes for marriage!" to voters passing by.

About fifteen minutes later, we began to receive piercing, angry stares from one of the Democrat volunteers, who had been handing out sample ballots and fliers opposing the Marriage Amendment. She made impolite remarks regarding my children's enthusiasm and their presence at the polling location. She threatened me and my children with removal. Her husband walked over to where I and my daughters were standing and began to confront my 14 year old daughter. He said, "This is tyranny you know, tyranny". I'm not sure what he thought could be gained by intimidating a young girl. A third volunteer with an irritated tone stated that "...children are not allowed and should not be allowed at polling locations". A fourth volunteer took me aside and informed me that "...fifty years ago in America, it was unlawful for a black to marry a white". She demanded to know why I supported the marriage amendment. I felt very uncomfortable with a fifth male volunteer who was attempting to speak about the marriage amendment to my daughters. When I motioned him to leave my daughters alone, he shouted, "I wanted to confuse the kids, but the mother won't let me!" A sixth volunteer (male) provided an unsolicited comment meant to support his misguided beliefs concerning traditional marriage. He asked, "Isn't the dowry system a traditional way of marriage!?" I retorted by saying, "Sir, this is America, not India!" I wondered if he was lost. By the way, I immigrated to the United States from India in 1977. I am a naturalized citizen of the United States of America. I have been a resident of Virginia for the past thirty years. I have been married to my American husband for the past seventeen years.

For the last year, prior to the election, we've heard the media disparage Christians, Conservatives, the Military, Republicans, and anyone else who didn't agree with their point of view. I guess the media and the liberals belong to the same family. They seem to believe the ends justify the means. Win at any cost. Threaten, lie, attack, accuse others of what you yourself are the most guilty of. Foment hate using false accusations of racism, twisted truths of the past, and if history doesn't support you, then invent your own version of the facts. My daughters received a lesson in politics and freedom, but not the one I intended for them to learn. Freedom isn't free. Standup when they try to push you down.

Liberals cry Freedom! They want the freedom to attack and pervert my children. They want the freedom to silence the opposition. They want the freedom to erase God, accountability, honor, and innocence. What they call freedom is slavery.

0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Gay/Liberal Misbehavior.

TrackBack URL for this entry:


Stay Puft Marshmallow Man said:

a rousing bit of hyperbole, and how. I like how she takes the desire of gays to marry their partners and spins it into, "What [liberals] call freedom is slavery."


"Win at any cost. Threaten, lie, attack, accuse others of what you yourself are the most guilty of. Foment hate using false accusations of racism, twisted truths of the past, and if history doesn't support you, then invent your own version of the facts."

-Karl Rove?

John Grigsby said:

I hope that Equality Loudoun will explain their sick little selves.

One of the Weintraubs (the one who isn't transgender - I still can't keep the names straight) took that picture of my daughter, and many others of her as well, as she was dressing for the parade.

His intent was clear. He was trying to intimidate/wierd her, and us, out. Luckily she was having a great time, and didn't notice him.

Luckily, my wife and I know what they are about, and so we kept our cool. If we had demonstrated any justifiable anger toward him, for his harassment, something I am sure he was hoping for, he would have loved playing "victim" in the papers for weeks.

Two middle aged guys then peeled off from the homosexual, bisexual, transgender float (sure wish I'd had a chance to see it), taking a bee line to the float my daugher was a part of, a considerable distance away.

They circled my daughter's float, repeatedly, hand in hand, in what I guess they hoped would be a modern day gay/bi/transwhatever version of the Old Testament story of the Israelities and the walls of Jericho. Maybe they hoped that 7 times around and the tires would fall off?

Wierd folks. Truly wierd folks.

Btw, the guy with Equality Loudoun who took all the pictures of my daughter getting dressed for the float, who posted it on their site, is the one assuming a "male" role, behind the other guy in this picture, where it looks like they were manning the Equality Loudoun table at a gay/bi/transwhatever pride event.

What a couple of characters. I have to hand it to them. They are certainly busy little beavers. Anyone have any idea what "Strap Up" means? I can read the other stickers the other partner, assuming the "female" role, has on his shirt, and even make some sense of them, but that one I don't get.

suburbanite said:


Posting the photo of the child is way over the top. What will the excuse be? That it is humorous? That the people who posted it were temporarily overwhelmed by the election results? That kids are fair game in campaigning if your side loses?

The photo of the two men shows two adults apparently happily posing for the camera at an event. That's their business, and it seems to be on the internet as part of a slideshow of the event. It's out there on the web, and I guess can be reposted.

The photo of the child could clearly identify an obvious minor, appears candid, and although it is months old (they kept this? What, for just in case? In case of WHAT?) is now on the internet, it would seem NOT by her parents' consent.

I am stunned. I don't think there is any excuse for this.

Sophrosyne said:

Tragic behavior but unfortunately not surprising... I know there were reports of respectful va4marriage poll watchers being spat on, etc by same-sex "marriage" activists. Real smart tactics on their part, huh? No wonder they lost their effort to leave marriage vulnerable to judicial redefinition by nearly 20% of the vote.

zimzo said:

I can't believe you are really this naive, Joe. Do you really believe this woman is enirely innocent? She willfully injects her children into a heated political situation, corralling them into handing out literature that attacks a segment of the community and then acts surprised when that makes some people angry. You don't think she was exploiting her children using them as props to provoke a response from the other side? What if she used her children to hand out literature calling for the outlawing of miscegenation in a black neighborhood, for example. Would you put your children in a situation like that? What kind of a parent would use their children to make a political point.

I wasn't there so I don't know what transpired and the response of some of the people she refers to may indeed have been uncalled for. But from her description it doesn't sound like the children were in any danger of being physically harmed. All that seems to have happened is that the literature they were passing out got the angry response it was meant to provoke. They received "angry stares" from some and arguments from others. The only time they were "threatened" was with "removal," which apparently didn't transpire.

The entire point of her report and your posting is to exploit the heinous myth that gay people somehow represent a "threat" to children. It's a pretty disgusting accusation, which as I have pointed out before has its roots in the "Blood Libel" in which Jews were depicted by Christian communities as representing a threat to Christian children. That you would traffic in this kind of hateful rhetoric is really pretty sad.

I have actually witnessed events similar to what your correspondent is describing. But they involved anti-gay "Christians" screaming repugnant things at the children of gay and lesbian couples. I have seen much uglier incidents than your correspondent describes at gay marches and parades in New York and Washington in which anti-gay zealots have screamed at children that their parents are going to Hell.

Despite the dramatic tone of your correspondent's letter there was never any threat that harm would come to them. Contrast that with the threat that 2000 brave gay Israelis confronted in Jerusalem this past week when Orthodox Jews and Muslim extremists threatened to disrupt a gay pride march there. One extremist Jewish group offered a reward of $500 for every gay person killed. One of the protesters lunged at a transvestite until he was subdued by police. Police received 80 security alerts. For the most part violence was avoided because a force of 12,000 police protected the marchers, many of whom were actually heterosexuals who came out to protest religious extremists.

I am willing to bet that despite your fears of gay people there haven't been too many people killed or beaten up for being straight. But a 2006 survey of gay youth shows that one third reported being beaten or harassed because of their sexual orientation. One in five had been physically assaulted.

According to the FBI there were 1,171 hate crimes based on bias against sexual orientation in this country. These statistics only include jurisdictions that participate. Anti-gay rhetoric in the wake of the Lawrence decision and the movement to place anti-gay marriage initiatives on ballots has led to an increase in reports of anti-gay violence:

"In the six months of 2003 from the Supreme Court’s Lawrence decision through the end of the year – a period that also included high visibility for LGBT people on network television and ended with the lead-up to the same-sex marriage debate – member organizations of the NCAVP charted a 26% increase in anti-LGBT incidents when we compared the same time period in 2002, including a 120% increase in Chicago, a 133% increase in Columbus, a 43% increase in New York, and a 14% increase in San Francisco. Even more significantly, in a number of these regions, significant downward trends reversed themselves after the Lawrence decision, resulting in a total increase in incidents for the full year."

So while it is regrettable that this woman was upset with what she experienced the other day, it in no way compares with what gay people typically suffer in this country.

If we are going to get along in this country, we have to learn to see things from other people's points of view. This woman may have thought that she was a victim of "threats" when she took her children to hand out anti-gay literature. But gay people also perceive that handing out anti-gay literature is a "threat." It would be nice if there could be civil discourse on all sides. And it is certainly inappropriate to address children in ways that could be upsetting or perceived as threatening. But it is also inappropriate for people to exploit their children as political props the way this woman did. And that error was compounded by you, Joe, using these children to make your own political points and insinuating that gay people in general represent some sort of threat to children.
Reporting on this incident really doesn't do anything to add to civil discourse and it is not illuminating of anything.

Robin said:

Mr. Grigsby,
I thought your wife, Pat Grigsby, said that you bore no personal animosity against gay people. And now here you are bearing false witness and being quite vulgar. I'd say that's plenty of personal anamosity.

Pat Grigsby's letter
Editor, Leesburg Today:

Robin said:

Also Mr. Grigsby, if you are so horrified that someone took a picture "of your daughter getting dressed" then why were you allowing her to get dressed in the middle of a wide open field?

Zimzo, 'miscegnation?' What are you talking about? No one I know of was out Tuesday advocating miscegnation.

Also, it's common to see kids handing out sample ballots and such with their parents at the polls because the schools are often closed for election day. Two kids were there during my shift. What reality exactly do you live in anyway?

The one in which normal rules of civil behavior toward children do not apply, obviously, and in which bad behavior by pro-gay activists is considered acceptable. Doesn't sound like a very nice place.

Loudoun Conservative said:

Zimzo, do you see yourself as a master of rhetoric or what? You say children shouldn't be used as props. What do you think gay activists did with their kids at the Easter Egg Roll on the White House lawn earlier this year? You refer to this poll worker as exploiting her children, but that isn't exploitation?

Hey, come on, man, do you want to outlaw civic participation by minors? What about all those poor kids who have to do civic volunteerism with the party of their choice as part of their grad requirements at government school. Is that exploitation too?

Listen, I think we can establish that at demonstations and counter-demonstrations and in some other venues, people on different sides of the issues have behaved inappropriately, irresponsibly, even cruelly. But, Z, what exactly is it that makes it so hard for you to say that what this woman and her kids or Grigsby's daughter experienced is wrong and leave it at that.

Kids who are sexually confused or practicing homosexuals do get bullied. I know that. It is always wrong. It should always be stopped. Period.

I handed out literature in support of the marriage amendment at the polls. I'm not homophobic and I don't hate you or my neighbors who practice same sex behavior. Period.

charles said:

"She willfully injects her children into a heated political situation, corralling them into handing out literature that attacks a segment of the community and then acts surprised when that makes some people angry."

I was sometimes afraid of wearing the "Yes on One" stickers. Realise this was a legally approved amendment to our constitution, properly on the ballot, and Virginians were expected to decide yes or no, and vote on it.

But Zimzo declares that voting "yes" was an attack on people, which justifies them being angry and acting out against people.

The amendment wasn't an "attack" on anybody, it was simply another chance for the citizens of our state to decide whether the government would grant special treatment or recognition to the actions of a certain small group of it's citizens. Any attack is an interpretation by those who opposed the amendment.

BTW, kids have been playing "wedding dress-up" for as long as there has been marriage.

Both our resident pro-gay advocate and those at the local hangout have really shown their true colors on this particular question. Children are fair game in their world because ... well, I'll let everyone come to their own conclusions, but I think it's pretty obvious and demonstrates a pattern of behavior.

If I had not been wrapped up with other priorities the past couple months, this aspect of the whole gay "marriage" issue is the one that had me motivated the most. As it is, I am really grateful Soph, Aislinn and others took up the battle. They put off by 10, maybe 20 years the effort to change the definition of marriage in Virginia.

The same-sex relationship demographic, this relatively loud 2-3% of the population, should not be able to foist their personal definition of our society's institutions on the rest of us.

"Why?" they ask. "How does it harm you?"

It's not about me. This back-and-forth shows exactly what it's about.

Sophrosyne said:

Joe-- Thanks for bringing it all back into focus. This back and forth certainly is illustrative of the stakes.

zimzo said:

I know this election, which is basically a repudiation of everything you believe in, must have been traumatic for you Joe, but I'm nevertheless surprised that you would stoop as low as you did in that last comment.

Because I questioned whether using children to attack a minority group was appropriate, because I point out that stuffing your daughter into a wedding gown on a hot day to act as a living prop to mock people who don't have the right to get married is not the best parenting choice, you have now implied that not only are gay people somehow dangerous to children but now suddenly I am. Clearly you are unwilling or unable to have a reasonable discussion on this topic.

If anyone has shown his "true colors" it is you, Joe. You have shown that this "debate" about gay marriage is really about hatred of gay people and anyone, apparently, who supports them. You admit that eventually our society will have gay marriage and all this measure will do is delay that inevitability for a few years and yet you support it for what reason? Out of spite? You admit that gay marriage does not really harm you in any way and yet you are against it for what reason? Just because you don't like some gay people?

I think most people are sick of this kind of politics. I think most people are sick of people who believe the only way they can win an argument is to demonize their opponents, who base their political ideologies on their own personal hatreds and prejudices. I personally have a problem with a lot of holier than thou Christians who go around hypocritically bashing gay people but I would never work to take away their rights simply out of spite.

I don't know why you are so angry, Joe. Sometimes your anger gets the better of you, for example when you compare liberals to terrorists or attack illegal immigrants for committing crimes when you have no evidence whatsoever that the person who committed it is actually illegal or just Latino. But when it comes to gay people your hatred and fear seems to know no bounds. Your constant invocation of "children" whenever the topic comes out is frankly nauseating. Now when you even go so far as to personally attack me for questioning whether exploiting one's own children to make a political point is appropriate, I think you have not only crossed the line but have jumped over it headfirst.

And shame on you Sophrosyne for supporting Joe's self-immolation rather than getting him the help he needs. By the way, why aren't you out there saving marriage from Britney Spears?

HA! This election was a repudiation of a bunch of hacks who abandoned all principles apart from staying in office.

A repudiation of the President? Yes! Oh, goodness yes. He deserves that and more of that.

Zimzo, once again you demonstrate an uncanny ability to pontificate on matters you don't know anything about. I know exactly what the deal was with those kids being dressed up for the parade because I remember when it was being planned.

I've only invoked "children" when the incidents at hand involved ... children. And each was an example of some sorry behavior by the children's critics. You brought yourself into that category with your uninformed critiques.

zimzo said:

First of all, Joe, I was not attacking anybody's kids; I was attacking there parents. The kids clearly had no choice in whether they would be exploited as political props to attack gay people.

Go back and read what you have written about gay people. Every time you bring up the topic you mention children, which is frankly, kind of creepy. That you were in on the planning of actually using children to attack gays is creepier still.

As far as what the election means, I guess we'll see. But I will point out that you didn't exactly have your finger on the pulse when it came to predicting the reasction of voters to things like Allen's macaca remark and his desperate use of Jim Webb's novels and I correctly pointed out how voters would react in the end.

Creepy, huh? Dude, you are making my point ... But I suppose we are talking past each other by now.

I was not "in on the planning" of anything but I knew about the event and I know the people concerned. "Using children to attack?" is how you interpret this? Bizarre.

Of course I wanted to Allen to win. I wanted Bob Dole to win, for crissakes. And Ross Perot and John Anderson before that. I wasn't wearing a black armband on Wednesday, though.

I will grant you you did nail how those 7,000 voters would react. And I'm not saying Webb did not deserve to win.

charles said:

I'm watching NBC's Studio 60, and one of the plots is the Network head telling one of the actresses that she can't honor her commitments to a christian organization she belongs to because they are against gay marriage, and she'll be labelled a "gay basher" and hurt the television show.

That is just a fictional example of what I was noting earlier, that a rational debate on the subject is shut down by proponents of gay marriage by labelling anybody who disagrees with them as evil, hate-filled bigots.

charles said:

Oh, and because it's a liberal show, they not only make that seem rational, they put a twist in where the woman is cancelled by the group, because she's supposedly "not intolerant enough".

Some day people will look back and laugh at the silly people of our day who thought it was important to keep humans from having sex with animals, or having families with more than two adults. Not that they are equivalent, just that no matter how much you push an "appropriate level" of tolerance, there's always someone else who is "more tolerant", who will be happy to call you a hateful bigot for not "tolerating" whatever it is they find "natural" (being defined as whatever it is they want to do, or feel compelled to do).

The logic is ingenius: Any practice which in any form in the past was recognized as deplorable can now be transposed as equally deplorable in any other form.

Because gays were once shunned and persecuted, any denial of gays' requests now is equivalent to persecution.

Good point about "tolerance," Charles. Once the spectre is raised, it trumps everything else. We need to draw that to its logical conclusion.

I find it, frankly, reprehensible that so many in our society cannot tolerate parents who don't want their kids to become homosexual. This pro-same-sex intolerance is one of the chief threats to civil society. The bigots who derogate traditional families and the Boy Scouts are, far out of proportion to their actual numbers, a negative influence in our otherwise tolerant culture.

John Grigsby said:

Here's the new social contract, courtesy of the two "Equality Loudoun" activists who posed for this picture, , one of whom took pictures of my daughter getting dressed and posted the least flattering one on the Equality Loudoun website, without the knowledge or permission of her or her parents.

Rule #1 "Don't call the behavior in the first photo strange". If you even think that, you are a hater.

Rule #2 "If one of the guys in the first (posed, and posted by their friend) photo wants to mutter while snapping quite a few pictures of your daughter, as she dresses, and then posts one on his website for all to see, then, CLEARLY, the PARENT of the child is the sicko pervert. Oh ... and ... of course .... a hater.

Got that? Don't worry. No one outside of the inner circle on the other side does either.

Either Jonathan or David Weintraub of Lovettsville, VA, activists with Equality Loudoun, owe my eleven year old daughter an apology, and I ask that they immediately remove the photo they took of her getting dressed from the Equality Loudoun website.

special ps to Linda Posey-Blue, first acolyte: my daughter was wearing shorts and skimpy shirt (my view, as her dad/ogre), as she donned her mother's wedding dress. The point you aren't willing to concede is that it is downright wierd for a grown man to zero in on a pre-teen girl with his camera as she puts clothes on, to then put her picture on the web, but again I must be a hater to say that.

Your are droll to a fault, John, and too oblique.

Let me suggest the EL folks are very, very questionable in their judgment. I can think of other words but will not use them quite yet.

David said:


I am deeply disappointed in you. This has indeed become a disreputable blog, and you are certainly in no position to assess my judgment.

Your creepy, sex-obsessed friend has attacked my family, by name, repeatedly over time on this blog, without a word of admonition from you. Why is that? While mostly just amusing prattle, the intent is clear, and it still is unacceptable behavior. I did not name this person, and have no intention of doing so; he chose to out himself. I have been extraordinarily restrained in my treatment of him under the circumstances.

As Zimzo said, I think you have shown your true colors here. You owe my family an apology.

David, you are quite a wordsmith. YOU link the photo of someone's daughter on the Internet and somehow YOUR family is owed an apology.

And of course, YOU are deeply disappointed.

Well done, sir. That takes chutzpah and debating skills, and I respect both.

If it's an apology you're after, however, I think you better look elsewhere. I can only go so far when it comes to indulging in the surreal.

Jonathan said:

Joe, John, Sophrosyne, et. al,

I abide by professional ethics when photographing events. The photograph you are objecting to has been available since shortly after the July 4th parade. Everyone in the set of photographs implicitly gave permission to be photographed by participating in the public parade. It was a parade for gosh sakes.

When I saw the “just marriage” float, I walked over to the participants and asked permission to take photos. Pat greeted me with a “hello Mr. Weintraub”. I greeted her and asked “Do you mind if I take some photos for the Equality Loudoun Blog”. She replied, “Sure, it’s a free country”. There was nothing unethical or unprofessional about the exchange, and there was no intimidation as reported by John. If you don’t believe my account, please contact Eve Marie Barner or Jim Huber. I had a similar exchange with them at the Halloween parade where I shot photos of the anti-marriage cult of the yellow signs float.

I too am disappointed, but not surprised at Joe’s behavior. Up to this point, he had been playing “good cop”, claiming that you and I were principled people, that we were “100 years ahead of our time” and that he held no personal animus against our community. All the while, he provided a safe-haven for Loudoun’s chief homophobes and haters of various persuasions. The mask has come off. Any hope that Joe, or any other contributor or supporter of this site has a moral compass is gone. I’d urge all fair-minded people seeking intelligent dialogue to stop commenting here, as it’s a waste of time. If you’re looking for a barroom brawl, continue to post, as that’s about all you’ll get.

Jonathan, thank you for making my point regarding children.

No one is suing you, by the way, so your detailed legal justification is quite unnecessary. My original comment called the posting "classless" and in follow up discussions I insinuated it was tasteless and also revealing about the mindset of the person who linked the photo.

I firmly stand by all of that.

And thanks also for reminding us that anyone who disagrees with a gay person's behavior or claims on society is a "homophobe." Because as a great thinker once said, if you keep repeating it, it will eventually be assumed to be true.

Pardon me if I don't play that game, however.

Also, if I ever said you were 100 years ahead of your time, I have absolutely no idea what I might have been thinking. I don't hold any personal animosity toward you, but I really don't think you are 100 years ahead of your time. Sorry.

By the way, we have only ever banned one person from this site - someone who very much deserved it - so your "safe haven" charge is pretty meaningless. I guess I got in the wrong line when they were giving out intolerance genes.

Jack said:

I believe the society they want existed in Greece some years ago. I submit that they are not 100 years ahead of their time, but 2000 years behind.

Stay Puft Marshmallow Man said:

Jesus lived 2000 years ago, does that mean christians are 2000 years behind?

Jack said:

Obviously, Puffy, you are not a Christian. If you were, you would know that Jesus is alive NOW.

charles said:

zimzo said: "First of all, Joe, I was not attacking anybody's kids; I was attacking there parents. The kids clearly had no choice in whether they would be exploited as political props to attack gay people."

I looked at that picture, and that child was not so young as to be a mindless automaton of her parents. I'm betting her years of religious training, and being brought up in a good family, left her with a firm understanding of marriage, and a strong desire to protect it.

Since you don't seem to want to address that, you instead essentially strip her of her humanity, dignity, and rationality by claiming she had no idea what she was doing (also you labelled her performance as "gay-bashing" to boot).

Surprisingly, most children understand ickiness, until they are well-"trained" by the public school system to ignore reality. Like children from stable, two-family homes being forced to "believe" that their peers whose parents are divorced, or who never knew one or both of their parents, had things just as good as they did, or that their friends with same-sex "parents" aren't missing anything.

If anybody could be accused of "using" children for their own devices, it would more rationally be those who, having no ability to bear children, design to force children to grow up without one or more of their natural parents, all so they can feel more "normal".

On that regard, I could more easily argue for polygamy, for at least then a child would have a chance of growing up with both biological parents, even if there was a third same-sex partner of no relation that the child was forced to call "dad" or "mom".

That kid is in fact an extremely bright kid, thanks for pointing that out Charles.

zimzo said:

And I'm sure they have the kind of relationship where if she said, "Daddy, I don't want to want to put on a wedding dress in 95-degree heat to mock the gays," I bet Daddy would have been just fine with that. How many times did you buck your parents' wishes when you were 11 years old?

Jack said:

Well, how's this ("") for using kids as propaganda?

Zim, you are amazing. 1) Care to critique what I had for breakfast this morning? 2) I'm holding two resumes: Which is the better candidate, the male or the female?

Jack said:

How big are her knockers?

Suburbanite said:

It looks like this has moved from talking about the issue of "Gotcha!" photos to fighting other things.

The fellow who took the child's photo says he had implicit permission due to the fact that the child was part of a parade. The photo linked doesn't look like a parade is happenning.

Did the child's parents just find out that the picture had been out on the net since July when Equality posted it again after the election?

And since it was really about concern for a minor in dangerously hot weather was child abuse reported in July? What was done about it then?

Kevin said:


Coco said:

For Pete's sake, y'all calm down now and take a deep breath. Use facts to defend yourself, not irrational emotions.

Football, guns, mumbly-peg, necromancy: There are plenty of safer topics out there, folks. Time to move on to new threads on NICE issues.

No Relation said:

So how about those Bears?

Kevin said:

Those bears were awesome. I even got pics of polar bears too.

Robin said:

Mr. Grigsby,
If your daughter was at a public event, not "getting dressed" as she was in shirt and shorts and she was in the middle of a public field, then why should you be upset at people taking pictures of her (especially since they asked and WERE given permission)? You obviously wanted her to be noticed if you dressed her in her mother's wedding dress and put her on display.

And personally Mr. Grigsby, I found it "downright weird" to put a child in a heavy wedding dress in 95 degree heat in order to display her and that if you felt she was "dressing", why you didn't have a sheet up or a changing tent for her.

If you put your children on public display for political purposes then you shouldn't fuss and bother when you get the attention you so obviously wanted.

As for you being a "hater", well that is between you and God. I do believe however, that if a "vote yes" person had posted the photo you would not be fussing about it now.

And my final word is that you have my name wrong. Thanks for taking the time to dig and try ferrett it out but you still have it wrong. All you have to do is ask nicely.

Mrs. Robin Posey-Blue

Coco said:

This dialogue is decaying exponentially in the downward direction.

What about those Kepler's and Newton's Laws?

Well, Johannes Kepler discovered three laws describing planetary motion. They hold true for all orbiting bodies in space.

1. Planets move in ellipses with the sun at one focus.

2. A line drawn from the sun to the planet sweeps equal areas in equal times.

3. The square of the time that a planet takes to orbit the Sun divided by the cube of its major semi-axis is a constant throughout the solar system.

Calm down! I'll tell you more. Be patient.

By using Kepler's discoveries, Isaac Newton deduced his Law of Universal Gravitation. Then Isaac went on to deduce his general laws of motion.

1. An object at rest or in motion will remain in such a state until acted upon by some force.

2. The acceleration produced by a force on a given mass is proportional to that force.

3. A force exerted by A on B is always accompanied by an equal force exerted by B on A, in the same straight line but in the opposite direction.

BE NICE if you're going to challenge me on this. No personal attacks, please.

Anyone care to discuss Evolution Theory, Maxwell's equations, Kirchhoff's rules, Einstein, Rydberg, Millikan, Rutherford, Bohr, Moseley, Franck, De Broglie, Schrodinger, or Dirac.

Walter said:

This entire thread confused the heck out of me until I remembered that politicians often go on the offensive to mask a defensive position. I found this funny photo of Joe Budzinski from a Sterling North site and bingo, the light bulb went off. Joe, we thought you had a thing for Ann Coulter and would have never guessed Wonder Woman was actually your fetish. Go figure.

I've always felt I looked good in green...

John Grigsby said:

Weintraub had no permission to photograph us, and certainly to (repeatedly) photograph our daughter. He (the guy assuming the male role in certainly had no permission to fixate on and try to wierd out my daughter. That was childish and uncalled for. A decent person would apologize for treating my daughter that way. On top of that, he chose the least complimentary photo of our daughter I've ever seen for display. Again, how immature.

I asked my wife whether permission had been requested or granted, to take photos. She said that no, she was not asked. She wouldn't have minded pictures of the float. Next time please have the decency to ask.

Also, it wasn't 95 degrees. Another "gay" lie, I guess, like "10%" (which actually is <2.0%, if you average out the higher male incidence with the lower female incidence).

My daughter was glad to help, and she had a great time. She is glad to have a mom and a dad and, per Charles' observations, instinctively recoils at the "yuck factor" of two daddies or two mommies. The float was very well-received, except for a small group of hecklers who followed it.

What one of the Weintraubs, and the two 50 year old guys who circled our float repeatedly, hand in hand, are all about is trying to wierd people out so they don't want to stay in the game.

Sorry, Weintraubians, we aren't budging from our position that same sex marriage and adoption has no place in a civilized society, and no amount of creepy behavior on your team's part will have the effect on us that you hope for.

zimzo said:

Mr. Grigsby your extreme homophobia is showing and you're really embarrassing yourself.

AFF said:

John- you are a serious wack job.

Please stop breeding

John Grigsby is one of the best people I know, a former dyed-in-the-wool liberal activist who changed his ideological positions over time through much reflection.

He described the events of that day to me some time ago in precisely the same manner he described them above, and in the context of that conversation he had no reason to spin what happened. Some of the gay activists tried to make an impression on the people running the pro-Amendment float. Something similar happened when I was manning a GOP booth earlier in the summer:

So I did not perceive John's experience as improbable in the least. In fact I've known gay and lesbian people who shared stories of supposedly freaking out straight people, stories met with chuckles because those listening had heard them many times before. Personally, I've never thought there was any doubt that some gays do these things purposefully. I have always thought of it as so commonplace that it does not usually get my attention or interest at all.

His story REALLY seems to be rubbing Zimzo and AFF the wrong way, though. I don't understand why that would be unless it's a "truth hurts" sort of deal. It seems very disingenuous to me.

Robin said:

Mr. Grigsby,
You really failed to answer my questions. Your daughter was in a public place. Many people were taking pictures. You can't complain about any person taking a picture of your daughter because she was in PUBLIC. Perhaps you should know the laws next time.

Also, you didn't answer why you didn't supply her with a changing area. That would have been considered implied privacy.

Also, it was a very hot day. You can see that in the picture. I recall it being in the mid-90's. This article quotes a forecast of 90 degrees.
That is still too hot for a heavy wedding dress.

If anyone else had taken the same picture you would not be complaining, Mr. Grigsby. Admit it.

Truth said:

Get the full picture. This woman does not give the full picture. She contacted the board of elections on 11/9/06. Democrats and Republicans investigated this incident and found her story false. The Loudoun County Electoral Board member Till Benning watched her childen block votes, cross the 40 foot line and yell at people. Other witnesses colaberated the story. I full report will be posted in the local papers soon.

wha? Truth, who are you referring to as "this woman"?

Joe, chamomile tea. For real. It works.

I've heard that, thanks TC. I tried it once but misapplied the concept by adding a jigger of schnapps, and ended up staying awake longer. I will try it again.

Truth, some links or documentation would be helpful. The local papers this week had nothing on it except for at least one, I think the Independent, which ran the letter. I guess next week's editions may have more?

suburbanite said:

I repeat my questions:

Was child abuse reported back in July since this is really really REALLY all about "concern for a child" on a hot day?

Did the parents only find out after the election that an identifiable photo of their underage child had been posted on a gay rights website since last summer?

Nice links to the weather related articles. They still don't answer the questions.

Robin said:

It was late and I posted the same article twice. My sincere apologies. This is the one that should be there.

As far as I am concerned this is a concern about children. I have no problem with showing our children have civics works. However, there is a difference between exposure and using a child for political purposes. Is a child a car? Then why slap a bumper sticker on him. Is your child a doll? Then why dress her up for display? Children are innocent and will do anything to please a parent . So, of course, they will "want" to do this.
I don't know if this was reported. I don't know if it qualifies for child abuse or just bad decision making.
I can't answer your question about how long the photo was on the Equality website.
I still believe that if the photo had been on a "vote yes" site there would be no problem. It seems they have no problem using children to get their message across.

zimzo said:

Joe: "His story REALLY seems to be rubbing Zimzo and AFF the wrong way, though. I don't understand why that would be unless it's a "truth hurts" sort of deal."

I hope you'll remember, Joe, that when something I say "rubs you the wrong way," which seems to happen a lot, it must also be because "the truth hurts."

Zim, by your changing the subject I assume you're admitting I'm correct.

But yeah, touche, the lesson is that whenever a person takes umbrage about an issue it's because the truth hurts.

I, for instance, find white supremacists irritating, which I suppose indicates the validity of the master race idea.

Thanks to Kevin for the link:

John Grigsby said:

It would have nice if there had been more straight-forwardedness from the anti-Marriage Amendment folks.

First of all, there was the name they chose to tag an amendment passed by a whopping bipartisan majority of two sessions of the legislature - "The Marshall/Newman Amendment". That's two names, guys and gals. Where is the rest of the 75% of the legislature that voted for it?

Then there was the claptrap about domestic abuse implications for unmarried partners, something they knew to be false. As soon as the campaign was over, this charade was too (see ).

It must have been tough for them to stay on message, as the truth is that the Unitarian Universalists, United Church of Christ, ACLU, and various gay .... transwhatever groups are united in support for homosexual marriage, and in most cases quite open to polyamorous "marriages" as well, and this is what motivated them.

It is also the truth that the 4-5 Weintraubians in this county do their best to make this debate one that people shy away from, through use of personal attacks.

For example, when I wrote a piece in a local paper, pointing to a "family" photo on a website owned by a male homosexual couple in New Jersey, citing it as a perfect rohrschach test for the marriage amendment, an anonymous poster (any readers want to fess up?) posted something to the effect that I must be one strange dude to be familiar of that couple.

As the poster I'm sure knew full well, they were on Larry King, for crying out loud. They are no tougher to find than a copy of People Magazine!

Taking repeated photos of a young girl who is donning a costume, while mumbling to yourself or whomever, while your two middle aged male friends closely circle her float, hand in hand, is not "reporting", but instead just another attempt to wierd the other side out. Grow up, Weintraubians. Grow up!

My daughter understands biology, and she knows that two warm bodies of the same sex is not "mom" and "dad". I'm glad to have had a mom and a dad. I'm sorry that Linda and the folks at Equality Loudoun are comfortable denying some children, categorically, the chance of a mom or a dad. Neither category is superfluous. Both are vital.

As I stated earlier, and you, Linda, can't resist ignoring, she was adding clothing to a minimal but not indecent outfit, as Weintraug snapped pictures.

As a woman, I'd think you'd be able to admit some discomfort with the immodesty of a grown man taking repeated closeup pictures of an 11 year old as she dons a costume.

And, no, she said nothing about being too hot, so please stop the crocodile tears. Despite the "best" efforts of Equality Loudoun, my daughter had a great time in the July 4th parade.

Please, folks, let's try to keep to the issue, instead of insulting my children, in the future. Also, and again, I ask that you remove that photo from your website, which was not taken with our permission.

AFF said:

John Grisby is the kind of guy you expect to read about after he slaughters his family in the name of god.

Joe- if you hang with turkeys it makes it hard to soar with eagles

Well, AFF, you are not doing your cause any favors with comments like that.

AFF said:

My cause?

Robin said:

Mr. Grigsby,
First of all, you are being rude. As I stated before: My name is Robin, I speak only for myself and not the Weintraubs and you haven't answered my questions.

If there was immodesty I'd say it was on your part. You simply won't admit that you should have had a screen, a tent or even a sheet to allow your daughter to change. Yet, you want to complain about people taking pictures of her in a public place. As a woman and a parent, I would have insisted on a privacy screen.
But then I would not have put my child though that display on a very hot day.

Stop complaining because you have no basis.

Keep ranting and raving Mr. Grigsby, you are showing your true colors. This is what happens whenever someone has approached you with logic. So, enjoy yourself. I have better things to do. I'm done with this discussion.

John Grigsby said:

WOW! Is someone off their meds today (see "AFF" quote below)!

I'm with Joe. Anonymous, you are not helping homosexual marriage advocates one bit by making such over the top attacks.

If your side must resort to anonymous ad-hominems, understand, however that I really don't mind.

I'd much rather that you treat this blog as a restroom wall, than that you resort to an act of violence.

Here's the quote I refer to:

"John Grisby is the kind of guy you expect to read about after he slaughters his family in the name of god."

Wow. That is just incredible. Friend, I wish you well. It's not good to allow anger to control you like that.

As to Robin, she is regurgitating the same desperate argument, hoping to drown out my response, through repetition. If you want to continue this loop, Robin, I'm ready to play cut and paste too.

Plenty of children were in the parade and yet, like one of the Weintraubs, who took repeated pictures of her and posted the least flattering one on his website, you appear to have an inordinate interest in my daughter, who was never indecently dressed, and who had a great time with her mother and others that day, despite the attempt by Equality Loudoun to rain on her parade.

I think it's wierd for a man to take pictures of a young lady as she is donning her costume for a parade. Sorry that we disagree. I guess us family slaughterers are just picky that way. Go figure.

Looking for an outlet for your concerns, perhaps, Robin, you should petition the UN to ban children from wearing of clothes beyond a certain weight on certain days. Maybe Sally Struthers would help with an ad - "You can take excessive clothes off this child for only $5.00 per day".

Either way, scat. The smell of patchouli oil is permeating this web page, and coming through my browser.

kevin said:

The whole off meds thing is getting a bit tiring.

Leave a comment

Type the characters you see in the picture above.

Old Dominion Blog Alliance


Technorati search

» Blogs that link here