Driving liberals, dhimmis and illegal alien apologists absolutely insane since 2005...

Meet Jeff Dion

By Greg L | 7 December 2006 | Prince William County | 102 Comments

Jeffrey R. Dion is the Democrat running for Occoquan Supervisor in the special election to be held on January 30th, 2007. We’ve heard a lot of nice things said about Jeff, who has done a good job helping crime victims. But there’s some other critical information that the Democrats haven’t been too interested in talking about that might help inform voters about how Mr. Dion values his commitments.

Back sometime around 2001, Jeff who was married to his wife Jane, and had a five year old boy and a one year old baby girl got divorced. To many folks that just one of those unfortunate things that happen to too many people, and is just another minor tragedy amongst a sea of similar tragedies. What makes this different is that Jeff is now an openly practicing homosexual who lives with his gay partner. To an outsider like me, it sure looks like he left his marriage and destroyed the stability of his family in order to pursue a homsexual “lifestyle.”

In the midst of this homosexual “lifestyle” Mr. Dion by all accounts raises these two children, who are now six and ten years old, in a 3BR 1-1/2 BA house of a little more than 1100 square feet that he bought for $90,000 back in 2002. Meanwhile, his wife who has since remarried, lives in a 4BR 2-1/2 BA house she bought for nearly $300,000 in 2002. From the press releases by Vic Bras and his statements to the press, the clear impression given is that Jeff has full-time custody of the children despite the evidence that his ex-wife has a better home for the children both in terms of space, but in the natural and nurturing environment that only a marriage can provide. Given that Mr. Dion is also a member of and contributor to the gay “rights” organizations that fought against the overwhelmingly popular Marriage Amendment, it shouldn’t come as much of a surprise that he would also value his gay “lifestyle” over his marriage and want to expose his children to it on a daily basis.

This is to my knowledge the first time that the Prince William County Democrats have selected an openly gay candidate. I am surprised they would want to first test these waters with someone who appears to have left a marriage and broken up a family in order to live as a gay person. It’s doubtful that Jeff Dion can get much traction as a candidate given this demonstration of what a commitment to a marriage and a family means to him, however. For many of us that commitment to our marriage and our family defines who we are, and how we honor that commitment speaks volumes to how we honor all other commitments.

Nice job foisting a such great candidate on the voters, Vic.

UPDATE: a reader forwarded me this email from gay “rights” activist organization Equality Prince William:

While Equality Prince William is a nonpartisan organization which does not endorse candidates, we do feel it appropriate to happily report that one of our own is running for public office. Jeff Dion (D) has announced his candidacy for Prince William County Board of Supervisors - Occoquan District, in the January 30th special election to fill the seat vacated by Corey Stewart (R)-Occoquan, when he won the election for the Board of Supervisors Chair this November.

Jeff Dion is a community leader, a commuter, a conservationist, a concerned parent, and a nationally recognized crime victims advocate. Jeff was appointed by Gov. Warner and reappointed by Gov. Kaine to the Criminal Justice Services Board where over the last 4 years he has helped send over $7 million in grants to Prince William County to assist with law enforcement, prosecution, victim services and community corrections. Jeff is running to offer practical, effective solutions to growth, traffic and public safety. He is also the first openly GLBT candidate in Prince William County history.

Equality Prince William applauds efforts by GLBT individuals and families to take an active role in Prince William County government - in this case not only by participating, but by leading. (emphasis added)

Apparently it’s only a bad thing when Republicans point out that someone pursues a homosexual lifestyle. When gay activists celebrate the possibility that one of their fellow activists might possibly be elected to public office and have the ability to promote their agenda, it’s an entirely different matter.



The opinions expressed here are solely the views of the author, and not representative of the position of any organization, political party, doughnut shop, knitting guild, or waste recycling facility, but may be correctly attributed to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. If anything in the above article has offended you, please click here to receive an immediate apology.

BVBL is not a charity and your support is not tax-deductible.

You can follow the discussion through the Comments feed.

102 Comments

  1. Not Jerry Seinfeld said on 7 Dec 2006 at 11:15 pm:
    Flag comment

    So, you’re saying that mid-game, he changed teams so that he could go to bat in the Yankees lineup ahead of Derek Jeter?

    …Not that there is anything wrong with that.

    An openly gay candidate for office in PWC? Not the best move the Dems could have pulled.

  2. Mason Conservative said on 7 Dec 2006 at 11:31 pm:
    Flag comment

    Who cares if he is gay? There should be a million other reasons to vote against him.

  3. Riley, Not O'Reilly said on 8 Dec 2006 at 12:00 am:
    Flag comment

    The fact that he associates with open taxhikers such as Mark Warner, Toddy Puller and Earnie Porta is reason enough to me.

  4. Mason Conservative said on 8 Dec 2006 at 12:03 am:
    Flag comment

    Amen, brother.

  5. charles said on 8 Dec 2006 at 12:08 am:
    Flag comment

    I’m not sure that Greg cared that he was gay, so much as the part where he divorced his wife and took the children into his gay lifestyle rather than his wife keeping them in what I guess (Greg didn’t say) is a re-marriage situation.

    Neither of which is really a good thing for the children, but having a mother involved in their lives would normally be a good thing, even if it meant unfortunately splitting time.

    Beyond that, there is the question of how this happened. Did Dion become gay as an adult after failing at heterosexual marriage, because of environmental factors or his own choice?

    Or was he always genetically and unchangeably gay, but decided to live a lie until it became “comfortable” for him to come out, at which time he abandoned those he had committed to in order to live the way HE wanted to?

    But we don’t know the whole story. Maybe his wife found out about his gay lifestyle (meaning maybe he was having a gay relationship, or just told her about it), and decided to divorce HIM.

    I think we do deserve to know, simply to know under what circumstances he abandoned his lifelong pledge of love and support and commitment.

    BTW, I feel much the same way about men who divorce in order to get together with other women. I know it happens a lot, but I am not very supportive of it. I believe that people have a tremendous capacity to live with, and even thrive in, relationships that on the surface seem better abandoned, but with work can actually BE what it is people would be looking for.

    I think we’ve lost the concept of “working for” relationships, and instead expect them to just “be”, and when invariably they “aren’t”, we are too quick to abandon them for the next relationship that at first seems to be “painless” and “care free”.

    Marriage, and any relationship, is hard work, sacrifice, devotion, and commitment — all of which are also good things to look for in a candidate.

  6. Riley, Not O'Reilly said on 8 Dec 2006 at 12:14 am:
    Flag comment

    Well said, Charles.

  7. James Young said on 8 Dec 2006 at 12:57 am:
    Flag comment

    Who says it’s not a choice?

  8. Anonymous said on 8 Dec 2006 at 9:29 am:
    Flag comment

    Well, glad to see that the meeting of the Pharises has been called to order. This little exchange combines all the worst elements of this site — prejudice, in this case homophobia, passing harsh and bigoted judgments without the facts, and trying, on the basis of gossip to attack somebody, condeming somebody because of divorce for god’s sake — gee, what about Ronald Regan and George Allen, well, there are good Republicans, so we won’t attack them. If the pack of you cared as much about how our elected officials govern us, as opposed to what they do in their private lives, this country might not be stuck in a mess in Iraq and going bankrupt. But, I digress. First, a few facts about homosexuality — it is not a choice. While there is a fairly complex combination of nature and nurture involved, it is not like people just decide, out of the blue, that they are gay. Second, it is not uncommon for people who are gay to get married because of prevailing social attitudes that condemn homosexuality and compel gays to live in the closet in order to be accepted. Third, Jeff is a good father, I’ve seen him interact with his children, and he is a caring and descent man who is doing an excellent job as a parent. And, I have three children, happen to be straight and married, in case you are worried, and would not have one moments hesitation in letting him take care of my kids for an extended period of time. And, since I’m not raising my kids to be bigotted, I’m not worried about exposing them to Jeff’s gay life style. Since his life style seems to involve being a responsible parent and hard working and ethical person, I don’t think they would be hurt. As for the voters, I think they are more interested in somebody who can do a good job for them, not all your angry homophobic garbage. They are worried about controlling growth, quality public services, and public safety. Jeff will make a strong case that he has the right ideas and the personal abilities to get the job done. Now, you all can sit around like mean spirited gossips and attack somebody for being a good father. As for the voters, I think they have other things on their mind.

  9. Anonymous said on 8 Dec 2006 at 9:31 am:
    Flag comment

    I know for a fact that many members of the PWCDC don’t even know about this. When folks find out about this, they will be shocked. A fast one has been pulled over the eyes of the grassroots Democrats in PWC. My understanding was that he was the only individual that the Occoquan committee could find to run and he was automatically the nominee when no one else filed. One cause of this may have been the high filing fee which several folks have openly questioned. If the voters know about this, I don’t see how he can win this race.

  10. Anonymous said on 8 Dec 2006 at 9:53 am:
    Flag comment

    Sorry Annon 9:31, the PWCDC is not a bunch of bigots and didn’t have a problem. Jeff let people know about the fact that he was gay. There are probably some people uncomfortable about it, but it is not that big a deal. Second, we are delighted Jeff is our candidate. He is smart, articulate, and a hard worker. People in Occoquan who know Jeff well are especially delighted that we are putting forth such a quality candidate. As for your comments Charles, why not take the beam out of your eye before trying to take the splinter out of somebody else’s. I know that the pack of you like to think of yourselves as such great Christians, but, as Jesus said to the women caught in adultery, let he who is without sin cast the first stone. As for all your speculations on Mr. Dion’s private life, it is a completely arrogant and odious thing to do. If we subjected everybody’s personal life to such morbid and uninformed speculation, I’m sure we could come up with reasons to judge everybody negatively.

  11. Greg L said on 8 Dec 2006 at 10:07 am:
    Flag comment

    I see the Democrat spin machine is in working order.

    I think it’s shocking that the Dems have nominated someone who thought the gay “lifestyle” was a better deal than his own marriage and family. Perhaps some hard-left Dems don’t have a problem with that, but I think a lot of other folks will conclude that if it’s a choice between some gay agenda item and their interests Jeff will be more than willing to throw the voters under the bus.

    The Marriage Amendment carried every Occoquan precinct, and Vic Bras selects a gay activist to be nominee. I guess Equality PW has taken over the PWCDC.

  12. Not Larry Sabato said on 8 Dec 2006 at 10:16 am:
    Flag comment

    This is beneath you.

  13. M Harrison said on 8 Dec 2006 at 10:24 am:
    Flag comment

    I am beyond shocked that you wonderfully moral people would attack Jeff without knowing any of the facts surrounding his situation.

    Instead of offering ideas for the future you offer speculation, hate, and fear. Didn’t work out too well for you on 11/7 and it won’t work in this race either. Even if this hate based electoral strategy did work how could you live with yourselves afterwards?

    Destroying political opponents personally only further damages our fragile system; you used to be the party of ideas but you have withered to the point of doing and saying anything just to have power. Lincoln and Teddy would be ashamed.

    I’m thrilled though. As Republicants become even more of a southern based religious party the Democrats grow stronger as we continue to pick off your moderate Western, Northern, and Southwestern members and as we make a home for the libertarians who can’t stand your religous zealotry.

    It must be horrible for you all to be so perfect. Why is it that Republicants who protest so much about the gay lifestyle and other moral issues tend to be the ones buying meth from male prostitutes, prey on teenagers, and believe overtly racist political ads pave the way to victory? Your hypocrisy was shown in spades this past election season and you were punished for it.

    Anon is wrong about the PWCDC members not knowing Jeff is gay. He has been open about it and discussed it with the Steering Committee several weeks ago. So get your facts straight next time (seems to be a recurring theme on this site.)

    One thing Anon is correct about is the ridiculously high filing fee. Keep in mind though that this was determined by the Occoquan committee and not by the PWCDC or Vic. Several of us though this was too exclusionary but it wasn’t our decision to make.

  14. Gurduloo said on 8 Dec 2006 at 10:26 am:
    Flag comment

    I don’t think people who choose the single “lifestyle” over marriage and family should be allowed to hold office either. Who would make such an absurd “choice”?

  15. Riley, Not O'Reilly said on 8 Dec 2006 at 10:41 am:
    Flag comment

    Let me go on the record once again as I stated above, my main problem with Dion is that he associates with open taxhikers like Puller and Porta.

  16. Hirons said on 8 Dec 2006 at 10:44 am:
    Flag comment

    WAIT, WAIT, WAIT!!! STOP THE PRESSES!

    He found property with 3 bedrooms for less than $100,000 in Prince William County after 2000.

    And his wife a 4 bedroom for LESS than $300,000

    There’s something fishy there. That should be investigated!

    Forget lifestyle and values - what’s his secret on finding property like that during that real estate market?

  17. Gurduloo said on 8 Dec 2006 at 10:45 am:
    Flag comment

    Funny how the opening post doesn’t mention his politics at all then.

  18. Greg L said on 8 Dec 2006 at 10:50 am:
    Flag comment

    Matt, it worked out well enough for us on November 7th that the campaign you managed on behalf of a gay rights activist was defeated. But go ahead and subscribe to the notion that values don’t matter, that voters approve of the far-left’s war on our culture, and that the best course of action for the Dems is to continually nominate the membership of Equality Prince Willliam as candidates.

    Maybe the Dems should have been more forthcoming about Jeff Dion’s history instead of making me dig this information up so the voters can be fully informed. As much as you complain about “destroying political opponents personally”, the opportunity to come clean on Jeff Dion has been there for weeks while the PWCDC has only given us platitudes about the guy. Now you’re hollering like a bunch of stuck pigs.

    Maybe you are beginning to realize what a dumb idea it was to nominate him in the first place.

  19. anon said on 8 Dec 2006 at 10:54 am:
    Flag comment

    Why is it the “christians” are always the least “Christian” of all?

    I don’t know Dion, but it seems to me that you are making a lot of assumptions.

    How do you know HE left the marriage? Maybe that was his wife’s choice.

    How do you know the marriage even ended because he was gay? For all you know she cheated on him, kicked him out, and then he decided to lead an authentic life.

    How do you know his wife has a “better” home? Just because it is bigger? Marriage and a big house doesn’t always equal a good home - ask some of your fellow members of the PWCRC. Some of them have quite ugly, secretive home lives in their big, expensive houses.

    Perhaps you (and maybe Charles and Mr. Young) can make a few more posts like this with the typical invective. It would actually give the democrats great ammunition to “prove” the hateful nature of republicans.

    Stick to the facts - I’m sure there are enough reasons for a citizen to vote against Mr. Dion without you casting aspersions about him and his relationship with his children.

  20. MB said on 8 Dec 2006 at 11:07 am:
    Flag comment

    Wow. Just wow. You should all be ashamed of yourselves.

    I read your blog every once and a while and generally I find your commentary to be dribble at best, but usually I just chalk it up to an ideology of fear and misunderstanding. I usually feel sorry for you that you are so clearly misguided that you lash out at people in derogatory and incendiary ways.

    I find very little journalistic integrity with your articles and have written you off as an instigator. Clearly, I was correct in my assessment. How dare you speak of someone’s children. These kids don’t deserve to be dragged into the vicious world of the blogoshpere and to imply that they live a life of less-value or morality is insulting and down right hateful. You owe Mr. Dion, his former wife, and his children an apology. It’s your prerogative to vote or not vote for him, you do not have a right to assassinate his character and his family in such a demeaning way.

    You should be ashamed of yourself.

  21. JMU Duke said on 8 Dec 2006 at 11:07 am:
    Flag comment

    I have been a Republican my whole life until this year and this is why. The hypocrisy displayed in this type of thought is appalling and frankly quite sad. I guess it’s fine for you that your morals allow you to judge a man who made a decision for himself that does not in anyway affect how he would lead in an elected position, unfortunately mine do not. “Judge not lest ye be judged,” are hopefully words that will resonate with you as you fall asleep with your Bible on your chest open to the pages that will endorse this type of close-minded bigotry that you use to accomplish your shallow political objectives.

    Are you really so big a coward that instead of opening this election up to be a debate about the critical issues facing the Occoquan area today you resort to divisive, putrid tactics such as these? It is impossible to take you seriously if you post this drivel with a straight face.

  22. James Young said on 8 Dec 2006 at 11:10 am:
    Flag comment

    Grow up, anon. There was no “invective” in my comment, or any post that I have made on this subject.

    You Democrats remind me of the Menendez brothers, who murdered their parents, and then begged for mercy at sentencing because they were orphans.

  23. James Young said on 8 Dec 2006 at 11:12 am:
    Flag comment

    What invective was that, Anon? Once again, Dems throw out wild, false charges in the face of a little truth.

    You Dems remind me of the Menendez brothers who, after murdering their parents, begged for mercy at sentencing because they were orphans.

  24. Mason Conservative said on 8 Dec 2006 at 11:19 am:
    Flag comment

    I think Jeff Dion is fair game on his public stances - so his support of gay rights is a fair political issue. It also fair game if the PWCDems tried to keep this a secrety. But please oh please do not attack his personal life, its not fair. He’s being a good father by staying in his children’s lives rather than leaving them. I really hate this stuff. So what if he is gay? Go after him for being a tax-raiser or whatever. But lets not gay bash here (and I’m not saying anyone is). Lets not judge what kind of father he is, becasue flat out we don’t know.

    Go after him on politics and issues, not becasue he is gay. Its not fair and its not right.

  25. Greg L said on 8 Dec 2006 at 11:38 am:
    Flag comment

    Whether he’s gay or not to me is trivia. How that condition informs his decision making is important in my estimation. And what decisions could possibly be more important than these?

  26. Anonymous said on 8 Dec 2006 at 11:45 am:
    Flag comment

    So, getting a divorce means you’re not qualified for office. I missed your blog entry regarding Tom Davis, George Allen, New Gingrich… need I go on? Look, if you’re a homophobe who wants to help strengthen the anti-gay movement, then just say so. But, don’t cloak it in “ooh, he got a divorce” and pretend that you’re not simply gay-bashing. I’ll stand by for the next postings that insist that there is no such anti-gay agenda in what you’re doing.

  27. Mason Conservative said on 8 Dec 2006 at 11:48 am:
    Flag comment

    Anon 11:45,

    You missed Jim Webb. Twice.

  28. republitarian said on 8 Dec 2006 at 11:57 am:
    Flag comment

    Another family values guy, what can we say?

    I say this jeff dude and Tom Davis are two peas in a pod….

    I don’t care who he sticks his dick in….I know that it’s just another sad situation for several families.

    While people want to act like sexual indescretion is okay, it is not.

    I would love to screw every good looking chick that walked past me…but it would harm countless people.

    It’s too bad people only care about themselves.

    MC, I disagree. You are NEVER a good father when you teach your children,by example, that satisfying your self comes before committments.

    MB, Mr. Dion has assasinated his own character….just likeTom Davis.

    Apparently, some people think that selfishness is now a glowing attribute to be passed off as an enhancement of integrity…..

  29. Mason Conservative said on 8 Dec 2006 at 12:08 pm:
    Flag comment

    Republitarian,

    I agree, but I hate to make it a political argument, becasue I fear it could boomerang around. It makes me uncomfortable.

  30. James Young said on 8 Dec 2006 at 12:19 pm:
    Flag comment

    Sorry about the double post, Greg. Are you moderating?

  31. Gurduloo said on 8 Dec 2006 at 12:23 pm:
    Flag comment

    “You are NEVER a good father when you teach your children,by example, that satisfying your self comes before committments.”

    So… Reagan, Allen, Newt Gingrich … all bad fathers?

  32. Vivian J. Paige said on 8 Dec 2006 at 12:44 pm:
    Flag comment

    Um, how come, if he is unfit, he has full-time custody of the children? Given the bias against fathers getting custody, I think that must say something about his former spouse.

  33. republitarian said on 8 Dec 2006 at 12:50 pm:
    Flag comment

    We all do bad things as fathers. When you permanetly break up a family it is different than doing something wrong, admitting it ..AND TRYING TO FIX IT…..instead of justifying it. I make it a practice to apologize to my children when I do something to them that was wrong. I also apologize to them when I set a bad example. It is a learning experience for both. Children emulate what they see. What do Tom and Jeff’s children see? They see Dad doing what he wants to, regardless of what it does to others.

    It only reenforces to the child that the behavior is ACCEPTABLE.

    This is not a gay-straight issue. It is a discipline-committment issue.

    Anyone who knows me, knows that I have been harder on conservatives for unseemly behavior because I hold them to a higher standard.

  34. anon said on 8 Dec 2006 at 12:51 pm:
    Flag comment

    From James Young:

    “Grow up, anon. There was no “invective” in my comment, or any post that I have made on this subject.”

    “What invective was that, Anon? Once again, Dems throw out wild, false charges in the face of a little truth.”

    That’s gotta be the funny post I’ve seen in a month. I can’t think of a posting in the blogosphere regarding gays in which James Young HASN’T had a comment filled with invective.

    You must need a dictionary; here you go:
    Invective:
    1. vehement or violent denunciation, censure, or reproach.
    2. a railing accusation; vituperation.
    3. an insulting or abusive word or expression.

  35. republitarian said on 8 Dec 2006 at 12:53 pm:
    Flag comment

    Yes Mc, it does make people uncomfortable. People don’t want to hold others to account because that will mean that they are held accountable…

    Who wants to be accountable?

    Tom and Jeff, and any other homewrecker….

  36. anon said on 8 Dec 2006 at 12:54 pm:
    Flag comment

    Why is there an assumption that this ending of this marriage was the man’s fault and that HE was the one who failed?

    I have figured out one thing from this post:
    Republicans believe that in all cases,
    Gay = Bad
    Straight = Good

  37. Riley, Not O'Reilly said on 8 Dec 2006 at 1:02 pm:
    Flag comment

    Wrong, anon.

    Republicans believe that in all cases,
    Tax hikers like Dion’s friends Puller and Porta = Bad
    Tax cutters like Mike May’s and John Gray’s friends Stewart, Nohe, et. al. = Good

  38. Gurduloo said on 8 Dec 2006 at 1:16 pm:
    Flag comment

    “This is not a gay-straight issue. It is a discipline-committment issue.”

    So Reagan, Allen, Newt … all had discipline-committment issues?

  39. Citizen Tom said on 8 Dec 2006 at 1:28 pm:
    Flag comment

    It strikes me that a lot of people are passing judgement here with insufficient information (That is why it is best to leave such things to God.). While it is reasonable to regard both as dubious choices, neither the fact that someone is divorced or a homosexual automatically disqualifies them from politicial office. Unfortunately, we all carry our own share of personal baggage.

    While a political candidate’s personal life is not entirely irrelevant, this sort of digging can quickly become as useless and mean-spirited as gossip. Just consider a few of the things we do not know.
    1. Is the reason for Jeff Dion’s divorce public knowledge or are you merely assuming assuming we know the reason?
    2. Does the mother want custody of the children?
    3. Who did the children want to live with?

    Anyway, I suggest we stop trying to judge Mr. Dion personally. Let’s stick to discussing Mr. Dion’s positions on issues and his record of public service. The fact he opposed, for example, the marriage amendment is fair game.

  40. anon said on 8 Dec 2006 at 1:35 pm:
    Flag comment

    Riley writes:

    “Republicans believe that in all cases,
    Tax hikers like Dion’s friends Puller and Porta = Bad
    Tax cutters like Mike May’s and John Gray’s friends Stewart, Nohe, et. al. = Good”

    That would be true IF that’s what this post was about. But, sadly, it is not. It’s a post and comments that say Dion is a bad person and bad candidate because he is gay.

  41. Terry Carter said on 8 Dec 2006 at 1:43 pm:
    Flag comment

    Yet, you make me wonder WHY the father has custody of the kids, and not the mom, if she’s so much BETTER suited to raise them, as you seem to think.

  42. Doug in Mount Vernon said on 8 Dec 2006 at 2:06 pm:
    Flag comment

    Umm, I wish you people would just realize that:

    #1 You’ve already lost this “war” (and it was ONLY your “war”).

    #2 People do not hate other people simply because they’re born gay (or even if they choose as you love to assert).

    #3 You’re espousals would be viewed as an antithesis to the message of Jesus Christ, himself, and by Jesus Christ, himself.

    Love thy neighbor. Stop lying about people you fear.

    One more thing. When openly gay people run for political office as I did in 2003 in Sterling, if starts to change people’s perceptions. They realize there is nothing to fear, and that lots of good people who are smart and competent and able also happen to be gay.

    That’s what you’re really afraid of. And guess what? It changes people’s attitudes. I’m pretty sure most of you would have been suprised to know last year that the amendment would only pass in Loudoun with 54% of the vote, and that 46% would choose a different path.

    We are going to win the struggle for our rights and our ability to live our very simple and boring lives with equality under the law, because we deserve it, because we don’t harm anyone, because we raise beautiful. smart, loving and very well adjusted children, and because we have God’s blessing.

  43. Doug in Mount Vernon said on 8 Dec 2006 at 2:09 pm:
    Flag comment

    Oh and one more thing, as was the case when I ran for Supervisor in Sterling in 2003, I’d be willing to wager that Jeff is running for Supervisor in Occoquan because he cares a great deal about the community, and because he wants someone to serve the citizens and community of Occoquan who will focus on quality of life and community betterment there.

    You people who make an issue out of his sexuality simply do a disservice to not only your party and/or candidate, but also to the community itself.

  44. M Harrison said on 8 Dec 2006 at 2:53 pm:
    Flag comment

    Greg - “come clean on Dion so you wouldn’t have to dig up dirt on him?” The PWCDC is keeping his life secret? Are you really serious? This is dirt for you? Like his stand would be on a policy issue, something that actually matters? You consider this trivia yet open the post attacking Jeff and his family; you are surely a decent man.

    Most voters don’t give a rats about the private lives of local pols but you need a wedge to attack him on and this serves you well.

    So your position is that for all nominated candidates they should declare their sexual orientation as part of their introduction to the public; is that what you really believe? Has Mike May declared his sexual orientation to the electorate yet? The good people of Occoquan haven’t yet heard who he prefers in the bedroom.

    Next you’ll want to know what sexual position the candidates prefer because heaven forbid he likes doggystyle when you believe missionary is the proper way to copulate. You have become a caricature.

  45. Greg L said on 8 Dec 2006 at 3:07 pm:
    Flag comment

    Matt-

    So it’s OK for Equality Prince William to send out a press release celebrating that jeff “is the first openly GLBT candidate in Prince William County history”, but it’s not OK for me to say that “This is to my knowledge the first time that the Prince William County Democrats have selected an openly gay candidate”???

    Please excuse me if I’m somewhat confused by your criteria for what constitutes acceptable political discourse.

  46. Doug Mataconis said on 8 Dec 2006 at 3:09 pm:
    Flag comment

    Attack the man’s political positions if you like, that’s what democracy is all about, but there’s no need for crap like this.

  47. AWCheney said on 8 Dec 2006 at 3:25 pm:
    Flag comment

    “If we subjected everybody’s personal life to such morbid and uninformed speculation, I’m sure we could come up with reasons to judge everybody negatively.”

    Funny how when the shoe is on the other foot this sort of thing is suddenly so odious. Perhaps you and your colleagues should have thought about that during this last election season. It benefits no one when good people, and potentially excellent candidates, refuse to run for office for fear of having their personal lives ripped apart, but that’s apparently what you wanted.

  48. AWCheney said on 8 Dec 2006 at 3:31 pm:
    Flag comment

    “This is beneath you.”

    Pot calling the kettle, etc. NLS? Maybe you should have thought of that this past election season.

  49. Greg L said on 8 Dec 2006 at 3:34 pm:
    Flag comment

    I believe the choices he’s demonstrated are informative of the political positions he is likely to have. But since no one in his campaign has mentioned this, we haven’t been told about what those positions are. How are we to evaluate this candidate’s qualifications if the broad subject of his moral convictions and personal behavior are uniquely off-limits to discussion?

    It’s certainly more informative about a candidate than fake stories about deer heads in mailboxes, who uttered the “n-word” thirty years ago, or what color dress a candidate’s wife is wearing.

  50. Terry Carter said on 8 Dec 2006 at 3:59 pm:
    Flag comment

    Hey Greg, how about answering my question please? Why does Jeff Dion have custody of the kids and his wife doesn’t if he so OBVIOUSLY doesn’t have the “MORALS” to be raising them???

  51. Anonymous said on 8 Dec 2006 at 4:07 pm:
    Flag comment

    Greg:

    Cut it any way you like, this is just pure and simple homophobia. Does it bother you that you are becoming known as a kind of political hit man. Nasty attacks that are too hot to handle are fronted by you so candidates don’t want to get their hands dirty. Interesting thing to aspire to — the political version of Luca Brazzia for Prince William County.

  52. Manassasinsider said on 8 Dec 2006 at 4:32 pm:
    Flag comment

    Wow Greg, you really hit a nerve with this one. Is this the most responses you have had on a single post???

    I love how “Equality Prince William” states that he is the first “GLBT” candidate in this County. While he is apparently both gay and bi-sexual, I have to wonder how Mr. Dion feels about also being called a lesbian and trans-gendered. If I were a gay man I might be a little insulted at being called a lesbian and trans-gendered.

    Equality Prince William this is very insensitive, I am disapointed. Stop labeling people things that they simply arent.

  53. charles said on 8 Dec 2006 at 4:37 pm:
    Flag comment

    Because people may not be able to read anymore, I guess I have to clarify and extend my remarks.

    First, nothing in my post said ANYTHING about voting FOR or AGAINST Dion because of his lifestyle, choices, divorce, or in fact anything at all. I wasn’t talking about voting.

    I first noted that I didn’t think Greg was saying you shouldn’t vote for a gay person (and Greg later said so himself).

    I then noted that we didn’t know whether Dion was responsible for the divorce, or if it was his wife, and in fact noted that all we had was speculation and therefore couldn’t come to conclusions.

    I expressed my strongly-held opinion that children deserve to be raised by their biological parents, and that anything that prevents that is selfish.

    I said that marriage is hard work, and that I believe divorce rates are up because we have been conditioned to think that relationships should be easy, and if they aren’t we should end them.

    I specifically noted that this was NOT a “gay” thing, but was a universal truth.

    I also asked a very sarcastic question to cut through the typical crap about people being unable to control HOW they live their lives, by asking which of two equally silly theories would explain Dion’s situation. I didn’t answer the questions because I have no way of knowing the answers, but I did hope people would be able to get the point.

    In fact, someone DID get the point without noticing they had gotten my point, when they said: “Second, it is not uncommon for people who are gay to get married because of prevailing social attitudes that condemn homosexuality and compel gays to live in the closet in order to be accepted.”

    I think that is true, but it also shows that the “gay lifestyle” is a choice, that gays can CHOOSE to live a heterosexual lifestyle (I presume the children are Dion’s). And for whatever reason one enters into a marriage, the VOW is a lifetime one.

    My point being (not about Dion, but in general), that if someone knows themselves to be gay, and with that knowledge enters a contract, it isn’t enough when later breaking the contract to say “well, I’m gay, and the contract didn’t allow me to be true to myself”.

    If you re-read my questions, you will see that I offer the alternative — if you get married, and THEN afterwards became gay, then at least it wouldn’t by hypocritical to argue that, having decided to be gay, you could no longer “live the lie”. But THAT would mean that being gay was not something genetic that you were forced into.

    But you know we can’t discuss stuff like this without the opposition calling us names.

    Which leads me to say that I’m sick and tired of being called hateful because i want to use the more gramatically correct “Democrat” rather than “Democratic”, that I don’t mean disrespect, and that if you are looking for someone who DOES mean disrespect, look no further than Matt “Republicant” Harrison.

    If you nominate a candidate, and a group supporting him announces, as an apparently IMPORTANT reason to vote for him, that he is gay, you can hardly come back and complain when people actually DISCUSS the fact that he is gay. If his being gay has no bearing on the election, don’t tell us he’s gay.

    I wouldn’t in fact vote against someone simply because they were gay. Nor do I think that Dion’s being gay should matter (I’m not the one that advertised it).

    It does concern me that society has, for all its pretend focus on “the children”, put way to much emphasis on people fulfilling their own wishes and desires without regard to family.

    I am NOT saying that Dion as done so, having no basis on which to make a definitive judgment. I speculate precisely because I don’t know the facts, and I see nothing wrong with speculation if it is clearly labled as such — otherwise it’s hard to have conversations about possiblities.

    It is possible that the situation in Dion’s life, if I knew if fully, would lead me to conclude that he has done the WRONG thing for his children. That’s all I was saying — there ARE a set of possible circumstances which would, for all the reports that he is a wonderful father, make him wrong about his choice.

    Being wrong is not a “heaven or hell” thing, often we make “wrong” choices that are just a little off from the best choices. To say someone was “wrong” once doesn’t mean they are hopelessly wrong or evil or unable to have any good.

  54. M Harrison said on 8 Dec 2006 at 4:48 pm:
    Flag comment

    Greg - First of all, the PWCDC did not select Jeff as the candidate. He was the only one to file thus becoming the candidate. I’ve already granted you the fact that the filing fee was ridiculous and I would have preferred, and I did argue for, a lower fee in order to encourage more participation in this process.

    You aren’t just saying this is the first time PW Democrats have chosen an openly gay candidate. Leaving it at that would have been fine but you took it to a completely different level by directly challenging Jeff’s moral character, introducing his kids and ex wife into the discussion, claiming that living in a townhouse makes him an inappropriate caregiver, and by stating that being gay is more important than his stands on the issues that really matter.

    My standard for political discourse is based on debate centered around issues not the sexual orientation of candidates involved. Anon above is right calling you out for the hitman you are. Great example for your kids.

    You are trying to back away from your earlier statements by limiting them to “This is to my knowledge the first time that the Prince William County Democrats have selected an openly gay candidate.” If you had just said that in the first place you wouldn’t have had to deal with the torrent of negative comments that have followed.

    As for Equality PW I could care less what press releases they issue. We should all celebrate when minorities of any kind get involved in the political process. Having minorities involved only brings out the true colors of the Republican right and brings moderates into the Democratic fold.

  55. Anonon said on 8 Dec 2006 at 4:56 pm:
    Flag comment

    Amazing how there are 54 posts about Dion and not a one about Dominion Power yet…

  56. Mason Conservative said on 8 Dec 2006 at 5:01 pm:
    Flag comment

    No no, there is ONE

  57. M Harrison said on 8 Dec 2006 at 5:02 pm:
    Flag comment

    Charles - don’t use that BS grammatical argument about calling it the Democrat party instead of the Democratic Party which is the historical name. And you’re right, I don’t respect people who are intolerant, hateful, and fearful of those who are different than them. We have had too much of that in this country and the Republicans have spent the last 12 years trying to find wedge issues and scapegoats. How can anyone respect a political party that runs ads designed to reach the worst angels of our nature, bringing fear to the forefront. Instead of “we have nothing to fear but fear itself” we have “fear gays, fear blacks, fear democrats, fear, fear, fear” from the republicans. Hypocrisy and a message of fear destroyed the Republican majority in Congress and give Bush an approval rating below 30%. How can anyone respect a party that that wants us to live in fear and loathing of those who are minorities?

  58. Greg L said on 8 Dec 2006 at 5:09 pm:
    Flag comment

    Actually, it doesn’t really surprise me at all. Challenge the gay agenda, and the left goes absolutely nuts. Tell folks about how one of the largest power transmission lines is going to cut across the county and they’re about to get steamrolled, and it’s ‘ho hum’.

    It’s a fascinating exercize to see over 50 comments on a thread involving a scandal by a neophyte candidate who we’ll probably never hear from after January, two comments on the high school football team going to the state championships, and not one about a thousand-plus-person near riot to protest what may well become eminent domain abuse. I think PEC ought to tell us that the transmission towers are gay or something.

  59. novamiddleman said on 8 Dec 2006 at 5:14 pm:
    Flag comment

    It’s just a commentary on the state of the blogosphere. I am sure your traffic will be through the roof today. It’s a pity most people will only read this one entry.

  60. R.T. Molleur said on 8 Dec 2006 at 5:14 pm:
    Flag comment

    Although I believe Dion’s conflict with traditional family values warrants close scrutiny, I surmise that if either May or Gray were gay under similar circumstances, this thread wouldn’t even exist on this forum.

  61. republitarian said on 8 Dec 2006 at 6:31 pm:
    Flag comment

    They have committment issues…yes.

    If this Jeff guy cares about his community, he should start at his front door. There is a direct correllation between stable families and good societies.

    There’s one thing that people are not going to do here. People will not say that the republitarian doesn’t call it what it is on BOTH sides.

    I’m all about taking sweet JMMD and Tom out politically. They are morally bankrupt and I can’t believe the Family Foundation lets them get anywhere close to one of their events.

  62. atheist_rationale said on 8 Dec 2006 at 6:46 pm:
    Flag comment

    Deleting my comments is the apex of wussiness.

    Again, please explain how all your superduper sense of family values does not address the facts that:

    Tom Davis cheated on and left his wife to hook up with another woman and

    why a family court judge awarded custody of the kids to this evil homersexual and not to his fine, upstanding wife?

    Big Kiss!

    [Ed note: this commentor had a previous comment deleted.  This comment has been edited.]

  63. R.T. Molleur said on 8 Dec 2006 at 7:41 pm:
    Flag comment

    Re: “….all your superduper sense of family values…

    Equating male to male homosexual sex in the human sewer system with conception of child within the realm of the traditional man/woman nuclear family unit is indeed a superduper sense of family values!

  64. Chris said on 8 Dec 2006 at 9:49 pm:
    Flag comment

    AWCHENEY says:

    ‘“If we subjected everybody’s personal life to such morbid and uninformed speculation, I’m sure we could come up with reasons to judge everybody negatively.”

    Funny how when the shoe is on the other foot this sort of thing is suddenly so odious. Perhaps you and your colleagues should have thought about that during this last election season. It benefits no one when good people, and potentially excellent candidates, refuse to run for office for fear of having their personal lives ripped apart, but that’s apparently what you wanted. ‘

    Let me see if I can understand this, you are saying that George Allen’s “Personal life” was attacked by the press’s reporting on him putting a deer head in a mailbox, or was it his overt use of racial slurs that was a personal attack? Perhaps the ultimate personal attack was the You Tube’s constant playing of Allen’s openly racists and anti-Immigrant Macaca comments. By the way, NONE of these outrageous indiscretions (NOT PERSONAL LIFE ISSUES!) were broadcast by the Democrats. The press reported them, and for good reason. It is pretty legitimate news when it comes out that a sitting Senator, one that wants to be President, is a racist. But you Republicans have moved so far to the right that you just don’t get it do you?

  65. R.T. Molleur said on 8 Dec 2006 at 11:35 pm:
    Flag comment

    The “press” for the most part are the Democrats. As such, they don’t report the news, they exploit it most often out of context to suit their political agenda.

    P.S. I put the head of Holstein in the mailbox of a Marxist vegan when I was a kid and the idiot took it and ate the cheek meat.

    Liberalism is a mental disorder.

  66. Terry Carter said on 9 Dec 2006 at 12:46 am:
    Flag comment

    Greg, I’m STILL waiting for an answer, this is the last time I’ll ask…then I’ll just assume that you don’t want to give an answer because it destroys your whole pathetic argument.

  67. Greg L said on 9 Dec 2006 at 12:51 am:
    Flag comment

    Terry, go ask the judge if you’re interested. I can’t tell you what the basis for his decision was.  The basis for the decisions of the judge in that case are irrelevant to the question of whether the actions by Jeff Dion make him more or less qualified to hold elective office anyways.

  68. michael said on 9 Dec 2006 at 4:28 am:
    Flag comment

    It’s okay to get divorced as long as you’re not gay?

    It’s okay to be gay but not okay for children to have gay influences?

    You’re a bigot.

  69. Terry Carter said on 9 Dec 2006 at 7:42 am:
    Flag comment

    Ohhh, I see, so the fact that Dion was for some reason awarded custody of the kids is irrelevent? Nevermind the fact that his wife *COULD* be some deranged drunk, etc. ??? No, clearly the judge must’ve been a radical left wing nutjob liberal. Right?

  70. Anonymous said on 9 Dec 2006 at 8:50 am:
    Flag comment

    All this exposes the fact that the type of Republican represented by Greg is not interested in issues, but in using politics as an instrument of character assasisnation, control of people’s private lives, and oppression. The three worst things about politics today is unwarrented intrusion into people’s private lives, the use of government and religion as an instrument of oppression rather than liberation, and scape goating of various minority groups as a means of distracting people from the discussion from real issues. Ok Greg, now, go ahead and delete the comment, since all you want on this site is cruel and unfounded invective against a good man.

  71. Anonymous said on 9 Dec 2006 at 9:21 am:
    Flag comment

    http://www.potomacnews.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=WPN/MGArticle/WPN_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1149192096992&path=

  72. R.T. Molleur said on 9 Dec 2006 at 10:18 am:
    Flag comment

    Re: “All this exposes the fact that the type of Republican represented by Greg is not interested in issues….”

    Because Mr. Greg has the GUTS and is interested in exposing the HYPOCRISY of LIBERALISM, this site in my perspective is the best political blog in NVA. Unlike, the gutless “moderate” RINO blog over at Too Conservative, Mr. Greg doesn’t shy away from expressing HIS TRUE OPINION. I may not always agree with him, but at least he allows tangible discourse on this forum and does’t hide behind the liberal and RINO “moderate” shield of political correctness.

    Finally, is Dion dating Brink? That would be a great question to ascertain since the Democrats are know using the James McGreevy syndrome to push candidates since they’ve run out of hard lib Iraq veterans to do their dirty work for them.

  73. Anonymous said on 9 Dec 2006 at 11:31 am:
    Flag comment

    And I’m sure all those people who supported Jim Crow laws were also sincere believers in their views. No doubt Greg and you are sinicere in your bigotry and hatred of gay people — glad we’ve finally dropped all the pretense of protecting society and have now reached the essence of your program — finding a way to marginalize gay people and push them back in the closet. Sorry guys, that train already left. You may be able to push a marriage amendment, but, eventually, that will be overturned as well. Whether Jeff wins or not, ultimately, will depend on the quality of his campaign and ideas, not whether or not he is gay. And that is what is driving you nuts — the world is a much more tolerant place that it used to be and will only get more tolerant. You might as well join up with the nuts that were protesting at the funeral of the Marine yesterday — because before long those will pretty much be the only people you’ll be able to find common ground with.

  74. Manassasinsider said on 9 Dec 2006 at 11:45 am:
    Flag comment

    Will someone from the Gay-Lesbian-bisexual-transgender community please answer my question already…….(see post 12/8 @4:32)

    couldnt it be insulting that Equlity Prince William is catagorizing Dion as a lesbian and a trans-gendered person?

    I really am wondering how they get away with putting all those types of persons into one block? As I said before, I would be insulted if I was a gay man who is also being called a lesbian and trans-gendered.

  75. anonymous said on 9 Dec 2006 at 11:59 am:
    Flag comment

    Tolarance: Putting up with something you disapprove of.

  76. R.T. Molleur said on 9 Dec 2006 at 12:21 pm:
    Flag comment

    Liberal tolerance: Putting it in something Mother Nature disapproves of.

  77. Anonymous said on 9 Dec 2006 at 12:58 pm:
    Flag comment

    And, of course, Moelleur knows exactly what Mother Nature approves of becasue God speaks directly to him.

  78. James Young said on 9 Dec 2006 at 2:37 pm:
    Flag comment

    Greg, I don’t know details (only what I observe), but I am not convinced that Dion HAS custody of his children. I attend the same church as Dion — as does his ex-wife — and I was under the impression that they had joint custody, at best (from his persepective). My impression is that she has primary physical custody; however, he is quite a dutiful father in the sense that he spends much time with his children, and frequently takes them to church.

  79. Anonymousisawoman said on 9 Dec 2006 at 4:43 pm:
    Flag comment

    It’s a little off topic, but all of you good, God-fearing conservatives have already beaten this issue past the point of death, so, how do you all feel about Mary Cheney’s little announcement?

    Seems she will be both an unwed mother and raising a kid in the gay-lesbian lifestyle. I hear her parents are happy to be grandparents again.

    Or is it ok if you’re a Republican?

  80. Anonymous said on 9 Dec 2006 at 5:04 pm:
    Flag comment

    Greg L. — this is really, really bad. Mentioning that Dion is gay, or even that you think he will support what most of us would consider the gay agenda is legitimate grounds for discussion. But what you are saying and promoting is truly un-Christian. Please, pray on this and ask God for guidance to do the right thing. As a solid Republican person of faith I will not vote for this man Dion, but look at what he has been through, look at what he has done, and treat him as a human being. What you have done is sinful; the fact that Dion’s conduct is does not justify your sin. Please, stop this.

  81. anonymous said on 9 Dec 2006 at 5:12 pm:
    Flag comment

    That’s really nice. What next, are we going to start quoting bible passages in support of illegal immigration?

  82. straightDem said on 9 Dec 2006 at 5:21 pm:
    Flag comment

    Greg L. — this is really, really good. Mentioning that Dion is gay, or even that you think he will support what most of us would consider the Democrat gay agenda is legitimate grounds for discussion. But what you are saying and promoting is truly Christian. Please, pray for Dion and ask God for guidance for Dion to do the right thing. As a solid Democrat person of no faith I will not vote for this man Dion, but look at what Democrat’s are putting him through, look at what Democrats have done, treating him as a sub-human being, exploiting his homosexuality to get him elected. What Dion has done is sinful; the fact that Democrat’s exploit this should not justify Dion’s sin. Please, proceed with this.

  83. Anonon said on 9 Dec 2006 at 6:18 pm:
    Flag comment

    StraightDem - don’t mock him. I, for one, think he has a point. We are speculating on a woman (the former Mrs. Dion), who isn’t running for office, and her fitness to raise her children when no one knows her or the arrangements for her children. Anyone stop to consider that they might have joint custody without one principal domicile? (I just saw that JY mentioned this.) Whether he is gay or not, he is their father and both parents should be raising them. If they can put their differences and pain aside to be active participants in their kids lives together, that is much better than what I got when my parents divorced.

    Granted, their kids are unlikely to read this stuff, but they go to school and might have a classmates parents’ or this woman might have colleagues read this stuff. Would you want to be psuedo-slandered on the Internet because your husband came out and walked out on your marriage (or you walked on him?) This is ugly, shameful stuff on the part of those involved in this debate. Doesn’t matter where you sit on it - implying this woman is unfit in any manner without knowing her is wrong. Even if you do know her, it’s wrong. She’s not running and she isn’t a public figure. If she does an interview about what a great/lousy guy he is, she has opened herself up. Until then…

    Forget treating Dion like a human being - I am convinced that when you run for office, you give that right up for yourself - but treat his former wife like one. She likely already has been through enough.

  84. anon said on 9 Dec 2006 at 6:36 pm:
    Flag comment

    Sure, how’s this, Jesus said “as much as you do to the least of these, you do to me.” What hypocrites so many of you are.

  85. anonymous said on 9 Dec 2006 at 6:47 pm:
    Flag comment

    GLBT can mean “gay, lesbian, bisexual OR transgender.”

  86. ProudDem said on 9 Dec 2006 at 9:02 pm:
    Flag comment

    After reading these comments, I have never been so proud to be a Democrat. Whatever will you do with poor Mary Cheney?

  87. anonymous said on 10 Dec 2006 at 12:11 am:
    Flag comment

    I wasn’t aware that Mary Cheney is running for public office.

  88. charles said on 10 Dec 2006 at 1:34 am:
    Flag comment

    Matt:

    It’s formal name is the “Democratic Party”. They are the party to which the democrats belong, and are therefore the Democrat’s party, as the Republican party is the Republican’s party.

    I use the Democrat party in the same way you would use the Donner party, not as a formal title, but as a descriptive title. It’s the party of Democrats.

    Note that the Constitution Party has the same problem, in that if I was talking about the people in the party I might well say the Constitutionalist party, because I would call them Constitutionalists.

    But your real objection seems to be to the idea that someone other than you would get to make fun of a name. In fact, I think it’s childish and immature to make fun of a name, and when sufficient democrats complained about being hurt by the name “Democrat party”, I made a conscious effort on my blog to use “Democratic Party” (as an aside, the idea of being hurt by a name is so much a part of what makes the “Democratic Party” the party it is today).

    Whereas you purposely use a name to be hurtful and disrespectful. And you revel in it (which is in fact another trait common to many of the involved people in the Democratic Party, intolerance, hatred, and nastiness directed at all opponents).

    Don’t get me wrong, I regularly have to fight with people on my side who use name-calling as if it is an argument. Which is a conservative trait — acting on principle and calling out people whether they agree with me or not, something you will rarely see in the elected members of the Democratic party (who I see just re-elected a congressman who was found with $90,000 of bribe money frozen in his freezer, and who used valuable national guard troops DURING the search-and-rescue mission after Katrina to be taken to his house to try to get the evidence before the FBI got it).

  89. charles said on 10 Dec 2006 at 1:45 am:
    Flag comment

    If it is actually the case that the two have joint custody, that would be a better thing than Dion having sole custody, from a general perspective (meaning not knowing the specific facts of this instance).

    And in fact joint custody would probably have kept some of this discussion from taking place.

    So who is saying Dion has sole custody of his children? I’m not really sure now that anybody said that — if someone said Dion lives “with his kids”, that might be simply misleading, not false, if he has the kids on weekends for example.

    Did Greg simply take statements to a conclusion the statements didn’t support, or were public pronouncements meant to mislead people into thinking custody was different than what it is?

    I don’t know, and that’s the problem with threads like this. It’s useful and fun to have abstract conversations about what “would be” or “could be” the correct actions in the abstract, based on possible real-life situations, but invariably that type of discussion gets swamped by people yelling at each other about “speculation” over the actual facts of the specific instance.

    Facts are much better than speculation, and would be enlightening here.

    So, maybe someone who knows Dion’s e-mail could simply send him an e-mail and ask him to clarify HIS custody of his children, whether it is sole or joint or if he simply has visitation.

    This is only of interest to voters because of the already made public pronouncements that might have suggested he had sole custody of 2 children.

  90. Mike in Arlington said on 10 Dec 2006 at 10:14 pm:
    Flag comment

    I am sorry but could you please justify why a larger home or the cost for that matter has anything to do with providing a better life for the children?

    You are probably right. I would want me children to aspire to own a trashy, oversized McMansion in the ‘outskirts’ of DC.

    And who cares if he is gay?

    Pathetic.

  91. charles said on 11 Dec 2006 at 12:18 am:
    Flag comment

    Well, Equality Virginia cares that he is gay. The democrat’s party seems to care very much that he is gay. I imagine his partner cares as well.

    To the degree I care, and it’s only as a topic of discussion about the general principles, I care not that he is gay, but rather that a child would be better living in a household where there is a biological father and mother. Barring that, it would be best both if the child had contact with both his biological father and mother, and also grew up in a household with both a father and a mother, with the father being male and the mother being female, in order to have the most appropriate and normal role models and because studies show it’s best.

    That might not apply in this specific circumstance, but it does speak against purposely going out of your way to force a child into the world that will be denied the companionship of both it’s biological mother and biological father.

  92. Mike in Arlington said on 11 Dec 2006 at 9:33 am:
    Flag comment

    Please share what non-biased studies show that it’s best to be raised in a two-parent household (male and female).

    Many people (including myself) were raised by a single Mother. The old school ‘perfect world’ of having two married parents is sadly a fading memory.

    For you to say that straight role models are ‘appropriate’ and ‘normal’, is just your biased opinion.

    The last paragraph appears to be irrelavant to this particular situation. However, the same goes for hetero parents who split apart and do not allow the children to see their other biologial parents.

    I have gay friends who have adopted (two mothers or two fathers) and those kids have turned out wonderful! Either way the parents have both male and female role models. Hetero parents should also have additional role models for their children.

    After visiting Europe earlier this year, it is very sad to come home and find people who are so close-minded and unaccepting of those that are different then them.

    My children will learn about acceptance, tolerance and love for those of all backgrounds- straight/gay/black/white/asian…………………….

  93. anonymous said on 11 Dec 2006 at 11:38 am:
    Flag comment

    Europe? You mean where Germany is, where they floated a proposal to pay the Turkish immigrants 5000 euros to leave and never come back?

  94. R.T. Molleur said on 11 Dec 2006 at 8:24 pm:
    Flag comment

    Re: “After visiting Europe earlier this year, it is very sad to come home and find people who are so close-minded and unaccepting of those that are different then them.”

    Well, if you don’t like living in this great Republic why don’t you round up all your intolerant GLBTWHLCMS friends and get the hell out and don’t let the door hit all you elitist secular progressives in the a$$!

    p.s. Why not move to France where French Army tanks have 21 speeds in reverse!

  95. Mike in Arlington said on 14 Dec 2006 at 11:49 am:
    Flag comment

    Re: “Well, if you don’t like living in this great Republic why don’t you round up all your intolerant GLBTWHLCMS friends and get the hell out and don’t let the door hit all you elitist secular progressives in the a$$!”

    It is a free country and I plan to stand beside and fight. I am sure most of you wish the Mexicans, Chinese, Blacks or anyone DIFFERENT from you would be rounded up and exported out of the country.

    I can’t wait until 2008. This country will finally be on a real path of acceptance of ALL of its citizens. And all of the the BIGOTS who get pushed in the proverbial ‘closet’!!!

    No longer are people tolerating use of deragatory words. No longer are people standing for failing policies. No longer are people tolerating being treated like second class citizens.

  96. Grownup said on 19 Dec 2006 at 5:15 pm:
    Flag comment

    Quick question…

    If Dion’s “lifestyle” is soooo horrible, and his ex-wife is so obviously a better choice to parent the children, why, then, does Jeff Dion retain custody? You’d think his ex-wife would walk into a court (where the judge usually rules for custody by the MOTHER, not the FATHER) and ask for full custody rights. Maybe, imagine this, Jeff Dion is the better parent. Maybe there is a lot more to this story than any of you know.

    So many of you focus on the “bad” gay man raising children. Again, if he is so horrible, how has he maintained custody rights?

    Grow up people.

  97. See right through you said on 17 Jan 2007 at 10:47 am:
    Flag comment

    You know, the guys that scream the loudest about gays are usually the ones that have sexual issues themselves. Ted Haggart ring a bell for you? Could that be your real issue Prince? Or do you just not want to talk about the real issues in this campaign? Not too many folks are fooled by this bait and switch tactic anymore . . .

  98. Dale Curtis said on 17 Jan 2007 at 10:48 am:
    Flag comment

    A) Dion’s private sexual relations and the size of his house are nobody’s business and have nothing to do with his qualifications for public office. B) Conservative Christian anti-gay bigots should remember that one of Jesus’ most frequent refrains was condemning uppity moral hypocrites. If the Bible is your ultimate authority, then you should take note that Jesus never condemned homosexuals, and “all” who call on the name of the Lord are saved — no exceptions. C) The climate of sexual repression favored by conservative Christians results in tragic situations like those faced by Mark Foley, Ted Haggard and countless child-abusing Catholic priests. A more open, tolerant society would actually promote what conservative Christians want, e.g. stable, normal family lives for people like Jeff Dion, instead of condemning them to secretive, fleeting relationships (often arising in the midst of depression and alcohol and drug abuse) that clearly do threanten family stability. If we all followed what Christ called the most important commandments — to love God and love others — then we would spend more time working on our own moral challenges instead of condemning others.

  99. Greg L said on 17 Jan 2007 at 11:36 am:
    Flag comment

    Mr. Dion’s abandonment of his marriage for suspect personal motivations and his deliberate obfuscation of his living arrangements are certainly worthy topics of discussion for voters. But by all means keep trying to re-frame this valid discussion with more cries of bigotry and your progressive reinterpretation of the meaning of the Word.

    Apparently discussions of the motivations of others can only be applied to conservatives and Republicans in your liberal orthodoxy. Heaven forbid we actually discuss how Democrats are informed in their decision making.

    Stable, normal family life for Jeff Dion’s family? Sheesh, we’re talking about divorce and having children’s visitations at the home of a homsexual couple! That’s pretty far from stable and normal from my perspective. But if you want to redefine that sort of thing as “normal”, go ahead and try.

  100. future canadian said on 17 Jan 2007 at 11:44 am:
    Flag comment

    Marriage is only a life time commitment in some Christian sects. Many other religions, including Judaism and Islam, allow divorce and always have. If you want your marriage to last until you die good for you. That is not an expectation that you can automatically assume others have. If you think that every decision you make between the ages of, say 20 and 25, should bind you until you are 90 good for you, many others don’t. I’m not saying that divorce is good, I’m just saying it’s not automatically bad, as apparently many prominent Republicans agree.

  101. Tomas said on 17 Jan 2007 at 11:51 am:
    Flag comment

    What a bunch of hypocrits attacking Jeff, conservatives are not immune from divorce and immorality cold-blooded Newt Gingrinch is such a fellow, divorced a wife of his as she lay dying from cancer,

    how about the evil anti -American spy Hansen while sharing his house with his wife and children strangely maintained an area in the family off-limits to family, friends and neighbors while he worked for years to compromise the security of our country selling our secrets to the Russians. All while a member of conservative Catholic organization called Opus Dei (I am not inferring anything other this vile man hid behind religious family man respectability while willfully compromising our country…he is a lucky man he got life in prison, at one time he would have fried in the electric chair, and in colonial times likely swinging at the end of a rope around his neck.

    Some of the more conservative areas of the US have far worse divorce rates for straights than say the more liberal and much vilified and “left-leaning” Massachusetts.

    Some of you conservatives may need to first clean up your lifes before you attack another fellow citizen for being gay… Jeff and his man may be doing a better job on child-rearing than some of you, (I have seen some gay couples who are gentler, kinder and sweeter than some straight couples while we are on the subject of vilifying and demonizing gay couples raising children from a previous straight marriage) maybe his child is in a more loving home than some of yours, maybe he is in a more stable and longer-lasting relationship than some of yours.

    Just because you are straight, religious, right-wing, conservative doesn’t make you any better or less problem-prone than any one else. Time and time again “straight arrow” types make messes out of their lives and that of their families and if they are public figures, we get to see the details in the newspaper if they mess up badly enough.

    So, we see clean-shaven, arch conservative straight-arrow types like the secret spy Hansen using the family home shared by wife and kids to do unforgivable things for years of a nature miillions of times worse than Jeff Dion potentially putting millions of Americans at risk maybe, (we don’t know all the whys, the hows, the wherefores of Jeff Dion’s situation and yet he is being crucified here by some who may have hidden skeletons in their own closet including that of self-righteousness)
    This Hansen’s activities, how do we know how far Hansen weakened our homeland security?

    Something noone in his/her right mind can accuse Jeff Dion of doing in this case.

  102. DAVE said on 21 Jan 2007 at 8:44 pm:
    Flag comment

    Dale, be careful when you quote Scripture out of context or interpret it falsely. Scripture must interpret Scripture, i.e. it cannot contradict itself. If you believe in the Bible, you believe in all of it, not parts of it, because you find other parts unacceptable. 2 Timothy 3:16 says “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness…”

    The Apostle Paul handpicked by Jesus says this about sexual immorality, meaning homosexuality, in Romans 1:26-32 (read the whole section) “…. God gave them up to vile passions … the men, leaving the natural use of the woman burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful … being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, …” The “them” refers to “men” (i.e. everyone). Leviticus also clearly condemns homosexual behavior.

    So Scripture that is inspired by God condemns homosexual behavior but does NOT condemn the person. Homosexuality is no different than greed, lust, pride (as in being haughty), idolatry, adultery. It is sin even if one refuses to recognize it as such and proudly proclaims it, as Jeff Dion is doing by living it. We should show Jeff respect, courtesy, love (in the … well you know what I mean) and if he says he’s a Christian, then he should be confronted with his sinful behavior. (Matthew 18:15 shows you how to do that.)

    So his personal lifestyle choice is very, very relevant in this discussion because it says something about his commitment to his faith and to the truth of Scripture. That causes one to consider his character. You cannot separate one’s personal choices from his public choices — it’s all part of his character and is relevant. It’s not THE most important thing in this debate–his stance on the issues is more important–but it IS important nonetheless. For example, did he support the Marriage Amendment? That says much about his support of traditional families as Charles has discussed.

    Now, if Jeff is not a Christian and still goes to church, hmm, why then indeed? Christians are held to the highest standard of Scripture … all of it. But condemn the behavior, not the person. That’s what “Judge not, lest you be judged” refers to. Only God is the Judge. It doesn’t mean we remain silent.

    I pray that God reveals my sins to me (or sends a “brother” to do so) so that I can with the guidance of the Holy Spirit confess them and seek to do those sins (or think them) no longer.

Comments are closed.


Views: 10522