How would you suggest a pro-equality (that’s “pro-gay,” to you religionists) candidate for public office answer this question?
I will Oppose attempts to add “Homosexuality,” “Transexuality,” or “Pedophilia” as protected classes or statuses under Michigan’s Anti-Discrimination Law.
Come on, come on, it’s one or the other. What’s your answer? Well, okay, don’t answer at all, if that’s the best you can do (you coward).
Of course, Eugene Delgaudio–who sent that question to Michigan state house candidate Josh Derke–doesn’t expect a pro-equality candidate to answer it. Obviously, “yes” is out as it would approve of the third item in Delgaudio’s carefully drafted list. Likewise, “no” would conflict with a pro-equality candidate’s commitment to protecting everyone’s rights, including the first two listed groups. So the only safe play is not to answer, right? Well, Eugene’s been doing this for a very long time. He knows better than to give you that kind of an easy out. So, after the question, he warns you thus:
Responses… will be reported to the members and supporters of Public Advocate of the U.S. — even if you fail to respond. Sadly, experience has taught us that a candidate’s silence on pro-family legislation is usually a warning of future abdication to the Homosexual Lobby.
So “yes” is out, “no” is out, and not answering is also out (since Eugene decides what you are thinking for you, if you don’t answer). What’s a candidate to do?
Well, despite Delgaudio’s commitment to, and experience with, avoiding the truth, Josh Derke beat him at his own game and found a fourth alternative. He answered Delgaudio and, instead of letting Eugene decide what he could say, Derke answered in his own words. And they are beautiful words. Mr. Derke’s public statement about it includes these comments:
I elected instead to send a letter. Their survey was hurtful; I have family, and many friends, that are LGBT. They’re not immoral, and they’re not seeking special privileges. They want equality–they want to be treated with respect, and dignity, just like any other person does. I think that they deserve that, without reservation. Groups like Public Advocate would like people to believe that there’s some great conspiracy, that a powerful and monied group of people is trying to usurp special rights and take away American values and destroy families. It’s a lie, of course. A rather malicious one that seeks to make certain citizens second class.
Following that is his full letter to Delgaudio. Read it. If you like it, send him one yourself. Josh Derke probably doesn’t know, or didn’t when he wrote that fine response, that “The Public Advocate of the United States” is little (if anything) more than a front for Delgaudio’s full-time job of raising money by peddling retail hate. A letter like his won’t make a dent in Eugene Delgaudio’s dislike of equal rights because, as far as anyone has been able to ascertain, Delgaudio doesn’t give a damn about equal rights, neither pro nor con. “Public Advocate” is a source of income, not an arm of his ideology. Eugene Delgaudio has no ideology.
However, Delgaudio has a soul, at least as much as anyone else does. From time to time, it shows. It mostly shows when he is confronted with the consequences of his own bad actions. When the Loudoun Board took down his staff and budget, it showed. When he had to go to court and answer for why he asks potential employees about their religious beliefs, it showed. When his local government passed a law that makes what he has done in the past a crime, if he does it again, it showed. Being held accountable hurts Eugene Delgaudio. He may try to laugh it off when his critics have him dead to rights, but it shows that, in his soul, it hurts.
Read Josh Derke’s amazing letter. Then write one to Eugene yourself and, if you do, post a link to it here, or on your Facebook page, or anywhere you can. Mr. Derke didn’t let Eugene Delgaudio limit his answers nor force him into silence. Mr. Derke spoke for himself, and spoke the truth to Delgaudio when he did it.
So should we all.