First Uncle Thurm … Now Aunt Polly?
From MJ at Lower Slower Delaware:
This past week, Milton Town Councilwoman Leah Betts held a meet-and-greet at her house for Mervine, with about 125 people attending. Approximately 75%-80% were gay and lesbian.
One attendee asked Mervine the following question – “Your father was an adamant foe to equality for gays and lesbians. If SB 121 were to come up for a vote today and you were in the Senate, would you vote in favor of the bill?”
Mervine’s answer and follow-up comments from her husband shocked everyone in attendance – “No, I would not vote for that bill. Most of my constituents are conservative Mennonites and I need to represent their views.” Then her husband chimed in – “Why would you even ask her that question. She’s on the board of Clear Space, so she works with you people. And if you want to talk about discrimination, if you’re not gay, you can’t get on that board.”
Ok. There are a myriad of issues to tackle here. First, why would you attend a meet and greet in Milton where you know the overwhelming majority of attendees are homosexual if you are going to be as pro-discrimination as your father?
Second, Polly has a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means to be an elected official. You don’t need to represent the all of the views of your constituents if some of those views are morally repugnant and unconstitutional. I dare to say that some of her constituents are racist, and a lot of them are Birthers, as shown by recent events. Does Polly also feel the need to be racist and question the President’s citizenship?
Third, why is her husband speaking for her when she is right there to defend herself? This has been a constant problem in this disaster of a campaign. Her husband responded to email inquiries from Shirley over at the Delaware Curmudgeon on Polly’s stance on motorcycle helmet laws. It is one thing to campaign for her. It is quite another to speak for her.
Fourth, “you people?” Yeah, that is always a great way to endear yourself to a group.
Fifth, how is Polly Adams Mervine on the board of Clear Space when it is a discriminatory organization that only allows homosexuals on the board? Is Mr. Mervine saying that his wife is a lesbian? Or is Mr. Mervine lying? I think it is the latter.
Jason and I have endorsed the Libertarian candidate Wendy Jones in this race for good reason. Because Polly Adams Mervine shows that the apple does not fall far from the tree. She and her husband are disgusting bigots and it is long past time that we rid our Democratic Party of such filth. We Democrats stand for equality for all, and it is quite clear that Polly Adams Mervine and her husband (whomever is the candidate here, since I can no longer tell) do not.
Vote Jones.
Wow. That’s all I have to say.
Third, why is her husband speaking for her when she is right there to defend herself?
Sarah Palin anyone?
DD, I’m not taking back my “GO Wendy Jones!” comment from a previous thread – but I’m going to have to do a little more research before go and endorse her.
The good news (and the bad news) is that my endorsement is as close to meaningless in this race as you can get, so there isn’t a lot hanging in balance here.
Please, feel free to purge the Democratic Party of all who believe that legal marriage ought to be restricted to one man and one woman. 🙂
You do realize that, even in liberal California, in the same election in which Golden Staters gave 61% of their votes to Barack Obama, the voters also passed Proposition 8 by a 52%-48% margin.
Dana, you monstrous idiot. SB 121 was not about gay marriage. It was about discrimination against gays. Now, I know you are a horrible bigot and hate gays, and perhaps do not possess the intelligence to distinguish between hating gays and opposing gay marriage, but they are two separate issues.
Wendy’s position is the most “liberal” {that is, libertarian} in the race. She believes that government should not have any role in who can and cannot be married, and that such contracts should be between two individuals and–if they choose–their church. She is the local rep for the Pink Pistols, an LGBT 2nd Amendment group. That having been said, she would have voted no on SB 121 according to her statements at the candidates forum, primarily I suspect because she follows the harder libertarian line that government does not have a role in telling private citizens who they can discriminate against or not.
So even though I would be to the “left” of Wendy (and understand Redwaterlilly’s feeling that there are four conservatives in the race), she is easily on the liberal side of all three other candidates on these issues, if not by a lot.
Besides, she actually shows up and answers her own questions.
To be clear here, Steve, and as you suspected, I am not supporting Wendy Jones because I agree with her or her positions. While I may agree with her on stance on gay marriage, I vehemently disagree with her on her stance on SB 121 and probably a lot of other issues, although I am comforted by the fact that the opposition is not based on hatred but on libertarian principle.
Rather, I am doing up to upset the apple cart, as it were. The Democratic and Republican parties in Sussex County are the same thing. If the citizens down there want discriminatory conservatives representing them, fine, but let that discriminatory conservative be a Republican, not a Democrat.
It is refreshing to see Liberals demanding tolerance and acceptance but not practicing it. It appears she has a different view on an issue and somehow she is a bigot?
Give her credit for attending the forum. If she did not you would be howling all night.
As for her husband speaking out, if he has a role in her campaign why not? Did he give up his rights because he is married to a candidate? I suspect he is providing support and help as needed consistent with her views.
Bottom line, 2% of the population wants to tell the other 98% what to say and how to act and if you do not you are a bigot. SB121 passed and you are still not happy? Wait, liberals never are happy.
Mike Protack
Yes, Protack, I am intolerant of the intolerant. I am sorry, but while you may coddle bigots, I do not.
Mike, “bottom line” is right. Your stats are pulled out of your bottom.
*Rimshot*
did I miss when the government told churches they had to marry gays and lesbians?
Rereading Protack’s comment, I am astounded by his bigotry.
You are talking about denying a person a job or a place to live based on who they are. You feel it is right to discriminate based on innate characteristics alone. Using a play on your percentages, imagine if you said “Bottom line, 14% of the population wants to tell the other 86% what to say and how to act and if you do not you are a bigot.”
That 14% would be African Americans.
You, Pornstache, are a horrible bigot and you should be shamed.
Protack, this member of the “2%” suggests you shove it up your ass. And don’t use any lube, either. You have to be the stupidest, fucking, idiot this side of the Bay Bridge. You amaze me with how much of a bigot and an asshole you really are! Using your argument, racial minorities are not entitled to protection from discrimination because they are in the minority. Just let me one of the many to tell you FUCK YOU!!!! And I long for the day I can say it to your face in person.
Thank G-D I don’t fly Delta. Any company that would employ someone like you isn’t getting my money.
DD
I am clear; I think I wrote the you would prefer essentially having an independent than having a useless Dem or just about any GOPer in the seat. I have no illusions.
I don’t think Protack is capable of feeling shame anymore.
Protack is incapable of simply feeling anymore.
did I miss when the government told churches they had to marry gays and lesbians?
The only gay in a wedding should be the priest!
Ridding your party of bigots would be “acting stupidly”. There’d be no one left in republican or democrat parties. Then again…
“I suspect because she follows the harder libertarian line that government does not have a role in telling private citizens who they can discriminate against or not.”
Private citizens is one thing but we are talking about PUBLIC housing and PUBLIC accommodations and employment. Basic rights we aneed in our daily lives such as banks, stores, public transportation, even public restrooms or evne your basic grocery store.l Oh, and public housing receives subsidies from tax payer money – they should NEVER be allowed to discriminate.
If we go back to discriminating against people just because we believe them to be lesser then others – aren’t we right back to times where blacks weren’t allowed to ride in the front of the bus and women were not allowed to open a checking account or vote?
“Wait, liberals never are happy.”
I am a very happy liberal every day that I don’t have to read your crap or any other right wing nuts.
I really hated it when deh blacks told us Whitey’s what to do back in the 19th century. Those MF’ers still are screwing this country up.
Is that a recent pix of ‘Auntie Polly’? What happened to that great head shot where she appeared well made up for the sitting?????
Mike…about that 2% thing…maybe you shouldn’t include that in your next run of campaign literature since part of the function of the US Constitution is to protect the rights of the few, even if it’s only 2% of the population…we don’t have mob rule in this country.
And it was a meet and greet, not a “forum”.
Susan….the thumbnail picture is not of Mervine, it is of Wendy Jones.