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

George Barker Offers Up Some Disturbing Imagery

By Greg L | 19 October 2007 | 39th VA Senate | 29 Comments

Don’t they cover this sort of thing at candidate school? This is a picture of George Barker, who is running in the 39th Senate District, that appeared in a recent print edition Fairfax Connection newspapers. The picture was taken during a forum for “Equality Fairfax”, a homosexual “rights” organization, where Barker had the opportunity to pander a little to one of his constituencies. He ought to be more careful. Some of us might get the wrong idea here…

Apparently Mr. Barker, the Democrat running against Senator Jay O’Brien, said he would support Gay Marriage at the Equality Fairfax debate. George said he would support legislation to create Gay-Straight alliances in high schools. I have heard George give a few speeches and he says that because he’s been out knocking on doors he understands his district. However, the marriage amendment passed in 29 of the 39 precincts in Senator O’Brien’s district. Maybe he’s just not listening.

Maybe his mind is wandering…



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.

29 Comments

  1. 200 Grande said on 19 Oct 2007 at 1:24 pm:
    Flag comment

    Ewww….

  2. ManexicoResident said on 19 Oct 2007 at 1:36 pm:
    Flag comment

    I couldn’t care less about someones sexual orientation. If you’re gay…be gay…hell, get married. Be as happy in misery as straight people. Wear pink leather stretch pants, I don’t care. I find it difficult to see the arguements against it. You can’t vote away gay.

    If you’re a polititian who wants the gay vote…pander away! What polititian isn’t pandering to something, someone, somewhere?!

    I’m not gay, but I have a problem finding fault with someone based on thier sexual orientation.

  3. John Light said on 19 Oct 2007 at 1:43 pm:
    Flag comment

    HAND CHECK - lol

  4. John Light said on 19 Oct 2007 at 1:44 pm:
    Flag comment

    ManexicoResident - “I’m not gay, but I have a problem finding fault with someone based on thier sexual orientation.”

    Then the Bible, especially Paul’s letter to the Romans, must REALLY kill you.

  5. Chris said on 19 Oct 2007 at 1:50 pm:
    Flag comment

    I heard about this the other day. Someone told me that the marriage amendment passed by 66% in Jay’s district. Is that right? And if so, what the hell is Barker thinking! He’s pulling an Oleszek here.

  6. Peter Danlyn said on 19 Oct 2007 at 1:57 pm:
    Flag comment

    If a couple must be certified in order to obtain some sort of legal standing, that’s a civil union. If the people decide that some sort of benefits should be afforded to certified couples, those benefits should be available to all, regardless of sexual orientation. Since the government is not the enforcer or arbiter of religious or moral beliefs it makes no sense to limit the definition of a couple by the sex of the parties involved. If the rationale is that a civil union gives protections and incentives to the breeding population, then it should apply only to those proven to be fertile. If not, it should be open to whatever consenting couple requests it.

    The government has no business in marriage. That’s the province of religion.

  7. Anonymous said on 19 Oct 2007 at 2:02 pm:
    Flag comment

    John Light said:

    “Then the Bible, especially Paul’s letter to the Romans, must REALLY kill you.”

    By using the Old Testament (specifically the book of Leviticus) as a basis for protesting gay marriage, you run into a couple of problems. The first is that in the New Testament, Jesus established the New Covenant, which stated that the old Mosaic laws about unclean things were invalid (Jesus in his own person said nothing specifically against homosexuality, although Paul later attributed some remarks to him). The second reason is that if you still want to quote from Leviticus, despite Jesus’ doing away with Mosaic law, then you better be prepared to enforce the whole thing, not just the parts you like. This includes not only the injunction against shellfish and mussels and such, but also against wearing fabrics made of blended fibers, cutting or shaving your beard, sowing mixed seed in a field, and a slew of other things nobody but Orthodox Jews take seriously anymore.

  8. ManexicoResident said on 19 Oct 2007 at 2:11 pm:
    Flag comment

    John Light said on 19 Oct 2007 at 1:44 pm:
    ManexicoResident - “I’m not gay, but I have a problem finding fault with someone based on thier sexual orientation.”

    Then the Bible, especially Paul’s letter to the Romans, must REALLY kill you.

    John, I must confess my ignorance to any and all references to the bible. I don’t in any way mean any offence to you, or your religion. You must though realize that there are many different beliefs in this world…not only realize it, but accept it. Faith in anything is quite powerful and I admire yours. Just don’t become indignant based on that faith or its founding documentation. Be the good Christian you want to be, keep reading the good book…but don’t ignore, discredit or decry the beliefs of others because they are not of your opinion. If your faith is true, then surely you will eventually have your answer. :)

  9. Donkey Breath said on 19 Oct 2007 at 2:16 pm:
    Flag comment

    Wasn’t Jesus queer too…?? Ran around with 12 men and a hooker…best friend was a man named Peter??? Never married…? Wore sandals and robes…long hair?? Left home to roam around the big cities of the day?? Had a traveling road show with magic acts (miracles)?? Might be why he never talked about it…and might be why he was killed by the state? Caught foot tapping with a Roman? Hmmmmm

    Seriously, Jay and James Young and Greg must be getting real worried about George’s campaign for Senate if they are pulling out their favorite smear tactic this late in the game. When in trouble, play the gay card. Sorry boys, won’t work this time.

  10. 362.87kg Homininae said on 19 Oct 2007 at 2:17 pm:
    Flag comment

    Neither shall you bear false witness against your neighbour

    Might want to keep this one in mind

  11. James Young said on 19 Oct 2007 at 2:48 pm:
    Flag comment

    I presume, Homininae, that you are referring to Donkey Breath’s falsehood.

    I’ll respond a little more directly: Seriously, Donkey Breath must be a moron if he believes that it’s a “smear tactic” to identify someone as an advocate for the radical homosexual agenda. If identifying someone’s agenda to mainstream perverse behavior is a “smear,” then perhaps it is a “perverse” political position to hold.

    If, on the other hand, you are suggesting that I am calling or have called Barker a homosexual (I do not speak for Greg or JL), then you, sir, are a damnable liar. I don’t know enough about Barker to speak to the issue one way or the other (I believe that I have heard that he is married), and unlike many, I try very hard not to pontificate with certitude about things about which I am ignorant.

    Perhaps you should read what I have said before you engage in your “smear tactic” (whether it is your favorite or not, I am not in a position to comment).

  12. Greg L said on 19 Oct 2007 at 2:50 pm:
    Flag comment

    Donkey Breath, if your intent here is to garner support for George Barker by blaspheming Jesus Christ, I’m pretty sure you’ll find that won’t work out so well. Probably more importantly, it doesn’t do you much good personally, either.

  13. Loudoun Conservative said on 19 Oct 2007 at 3:58 pm:
    Flag comment

    I have met Barker’s wife. I will say that’s not a photo I’d be passing around if I were him - he’s probably just holding a water bottle but it does look a bit wierd.

  14. Krutis said on 19 Oct 2007 at 4:02 pm:
    Flag comment

    Greg - for heaven’s sake (that’s not plasphemy, is it? Got to make sure, or I’ll get a repremand.) Get your mind out of the gutter. Using your blog for something so insignificant ought to be beneath you. Just as was posting Bob Rudine’s picture of the two “signing” ladies a while back. You MUST have something more worthwhile to post.

  15. 362.87kg Homininae said on 19 Oct 2007 at 5:59 pm:
    Flag comment

    James Young
    who says I was talking about you. Little paranoid or just homophobic.

    I did like the “damnable liar”

    Scarlett O’Hara would be proud

    But frankly James I don’t give a dam

  16. park'd said on 19 Oct 2007 at 6:02 pm:
    Flag comment

    I too will never understand this fascination with gays either from the far right. Who cares where some guy buries his salami anyway…

    As long as they don’t hit on me then I could care less. In fact the gay guys that I have known in my life have all been great people. Obviously I wouldn’t want my son to grow up to be gay, but I would still love him either way.

    There are just too many other important issues to worry about these days:

    1. illegal immigration
    2. Iraq war
    3. worst.president.EVER.

  17. John Light said on 19 Oct 2007 at 6:39 pm:
    Flag comment

    Anonymous said on 19 Oct 2007 at 2:02 pm:

    Ok, where did Leviticus come in since I quoted Paul’s letter to the Romans??? If you check the Holy Bible, you will find it in the New Testament, not the Old.

    ManexicoResident - I will respect that you are not saved and pray that in your research, you will find the truth in God’s Holy word (and that is the last time I will do a TRUE preaching on here as this really is not the place, but is the place to discuss religion and whatever comes of that discussion is between the posters and his/her God).

    I agree with Jim Young and in no way did I imply that Barker is homosexual, though nothing says that homosexual’s cannot marry those of the opposite sex (again, not implying). All I said was “hand check”.

    And park’d - Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter are no longer in office, so not quite sure where #3 came from. Our economy is doing great, the war in Iraq IS doing well - the ONLY fault I can find with W is on immigration.

    And to 362.87kg Homininae - NO ONE ever died of homophobia!!!

  18. Anonymous said on 19 Oct 2007 at 6:52 pm:
    Flag comment

    Well, they’re telling us the economy is doing great, but a lot of people at the bottom of the heap don’t think so…

  19. Krutis said on 19 Oct 2007 at 8:33 pm:
    Flag comment

    John Light - Maybe nobody dies FROM homophobia but several have died BECAUSE of homophobia. Muders, you know.

  20. Krutis said on 19 Oct 2007 at 9:01 pm:
    Flag comment

    Shucks - “MuRders” of course.

  21. Bobcat said on 19 Oct 2007 at 9:27 pm:
    Flag comment

    I agree. If two men or two women that are in love with one another want to get married, they should be able to. If the word “marriage” is the problem, then everyone gay or straight should be able to have “civil unions” and leave marriages to the churches. In any case several churches, temples, etc already all marriage for same-sex couples. People should not impose their individual beliefs on the liberties of others.

    As for gay-straight alliances in high school, these are voluntary clubs/groups. No one forces anyone to join. It is not part of any curriculum. If this can help alleviate the bullying of students and the VERY high suicide rate of gay teenagers, then they should not only be allowed, but encouraged.

  22. dolph said on 19 Oct 2007 at 9:47 pm:
    Flag comment

    Live and let live. If it doesn’t hurt me or anyone else, why should I care who marries whom?

  23. Anonymous said on 19 Oct 2007 at 9:53 pm:
    Flag comment

    NO ONE ever died of homophobia!!!

    Not so there are a number of cases in which gays have been beaten to death just for being gay

  24. James Young said on 19 Oct 2007 at 10:00 pm:
    Flag comment

    Hominae, I didn’t say you were talking about me. Notice the part where I said “I presume, Homininae, that you are referring to Donkey Breath’s falsehood.” I then addressed the most blatant falsehood in the thread.

    But all we get from the far Left is “smears.” Now, apparently, anyone who subscribes to the considered wisdom of virtually every civilized society of the last 5000 years on marriage and homosexuality is “far right.”

    Y’all really are nihilists, aren’t you?

    And Krutis, get a little reality check. More people have died from the homosexual lifestyle and the diseases it spreads than from “homophobia,” even as you apparently inaccurately define it. Of course, “homophobia” is accurately defined as “fear of” homosexuals, and it is yet another smear tactic by the far Left to project upon those who reject the radical homosexual agenda the rather unappealing characteristic of “fear.” It’s a little like the far Left’s whining about being called “unpatriotic.” Of course, no one (or hardly anyone) ever calls a far Left anti-war nut “unpatriotic.” They’re just called “unwise,” “inconsistent,” “head-in-the-sand,” and/or “unrealistic.” But it’s so much easier to assume the posture of a victim if one pretends to have been called “unpatriotic.” If they actually addressed the criticisms leveled against them, they might have to explain their unwise, inconsistent, head-in-the-sand, unrealistic policy pronouncements. And, of course, that is something to be avoided at all costs.

  25. John Light said on 19 Oct 2007 at 10:51 pm:
    Flag comment

    Mr. Young…amen!!!

  26. Anonymous said on 20 Oct 2007 at 7:05 am:
    Flag comment

    I’ll keep simple

    War = Good = patriotic

    Homo = Death = (gods will)

    Sorry I’m not Lawyer

    I’m pretty sure that marriage does not reach back 5000 years and most “civilized societies” didn’t have an issue with homosexuality. Rome would be the best example.

  27. Anonymous said on 21 Oct 2007 at 12:09 am:
    Flag comment

    Funny about Pauls Letter to the Romans —

    2:1 Therefore you are without excuse, O man, whoever you are who judge. For in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself. For you who judge practice the same things.
    2:2 We know that the judgment of God is according to truth against those who practice such things.
    2:3 Do you think this, O man who judges those who practice such things, and do the same, that you will escape the judgment of God?
    2:4 Or do you despise the riches of his goodness, forbearance, and patience, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance?

    Sitting in judgement of others lifestyle choices or needs makes you a sinner (if you believe that they are) also for you carry the same sin as they do (should you believe them to be sinners).

    Christianity can be a cruel mistress in the hands of those that read and practice only a portion of it.

  28. freedom said on 21 Oct 2007 at 12:02 pm:
    Flag comment

    Anonymous said 6:52 pm:

    “Well, they’re telling us the economy is doing great, but a lot of people at the bottom of the heap don’t think so…”

    Hmmmmm, got a recommendation for ya, Anonymous…stop complaining, get busy, and get off the bottom….or is it simply easier and more comfortable where you are? The choice is yours.

  29. Truant Spirit said on 15 Dec 2007 at 6:53 am:
    Flag comment

    The photo looks like a guy sitting with his hands in his lap. Whatever is on your mind is on *your* mind. Maybe that’s the *real* “gay problem,” what’s in your ugly little mind.

Comments are closed.


Views: 1852