I’m not quite sure that you can get any lower than this.
I’d quote the article, but I really don’t want to be associated with nonsense like this. For the record, I live in the Occoquan District so this directly impacts me. I also happen to know Jeff Dion, though not well, because we went to law school together.
A note to Prince William County Republicans — attack him for his stand on the issues, that’s fine and fair game. But there’s no place for garbage like this.
December 8th, 2006 at 5:00 pm
Well, perhaps by leaving your wife and two small children for another man. Or by supporting (as I believe Jeff did) the perversion of law and the English language by suggesting that two men, or two women, or whatever, should be allowed to be married.
In any case, if my recollection is correct, Dion opposed Amendment No. 1 in a letter printed in the Pot. News. In which case, he is not only living the lifestyle; he is advancing the agenda. And that, in itself, is reason to oppose his candidacy.
December 8th, 2006 at 6:02 pm
James,
I opposed Amendment 1 as well, and voted against it. So did my wife.
I fail to see how his personal life is even relevant for discussion in a political campaign.
December 10th, 2006 at 12:02 pm
And you were all wrong to do so. The arguments proffered by the amendment’s supporters were dishonest to their core, as evidenced by the dearth of cases pending in Virginia courts fulfilling their self-servingly hyperbolic predictions.
As for the relevance of the issue, well, let’s see: an oath is taken when one enters public office; an oath when one marries. That one cannot fulfill the latter suggests that others are appropriately dubious about one’s ability to fulfill the former. Similarly, when one advocates the fundamental perversion of the English language and practices perversion, and makes a public issue of both, others are appropriately dubious about one’s fitness to serve.
I’m not suggesting that all people who divorce are unfit to serve in public office. Nevertheless, the question of oaths is one that could appropriately motivate certain segments of the electorate. After all, we lionize Sir Thomas More, and rightly so.
December 10th, 2006 at 2:56 pm
James,
No I’m not wrong, you just happen to disagree with me. I voted against Amendment 1 because I don’t think the state has the right to forbid two people from entering into whatever type of relationship they wish to. There was a time when Virginia forbid blacks and whites from marrying and, to me, this is no different.
And if you are going to make marital infidelity a relevant issue in political campaigns, then there are going to be a lot of politicians, including one prominent Northern Virginia Republican, who are ineligible for office as well.
Neither you nor I know any of the details of Mr. Dion’s personal life or what happened with his marriage. Personally, I don’t care to know since it won’t have any impact on who I decide to vote for.
And, by the way, if the Prince William GOP tries to make this an issue in the campaign, they will have lost my vote.
December 23rd, 2006 at 1:27 am
hello. it’s a nice day for your ideas
January 30th, 2007 at 11:43 pm
[...] acting. Quite honestly, Jeff Dion’s sexual orientation just isn’t relevant to me, and as I said when the campaign started, I thought the focus of two bloggers in particluar on that issue was, quite honestly, disgusting.? [...]