INDEPENDENT
CANDIDATE RESPONDS TO DEL. SCOTT
SUROVELL'S
PROPOSAL TO REPEAL THE MARSHALL-NEWMAN
AMENDMENT
____________________________________
MAKE
A POLITICAL CONTRIBUTION
TO THE GLEAN
CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE
PIRYX™
ACCEPTS ALL MAJOR CREDIT
CARDS,
AS WELL AS
ELECTRONIC-CHECKS.
____________________________________
Joe Glean responds
to Del. Scott Surovell [VA-44].
Rise
To The Rescue - Sunday,
August 7, 2011
ALEXANDRIA,
VA— As it will be
remembered, back in 2006, Virginia voted overwhelmingly
to enact the Marshall-Newman Amendment,
the Virginia marriage amendment that
defines marriage as solely between one
man and one woman. Our local
delegate to the Virginia General Assembly
opposes this amendment with a
passion. One of his goals as a
politician is to someday repeal it.
Why?, you might ask: In
order to help pave the way for gay
marriage in Virginia.
The following
presentation is intended to provide
voters with a concise, but accurate
overview of Scott Surovell's views on gay
marriage, followed by some of my own
thoughts on the issue. The audio
clips were taken from an interview
conducted by Equality Fairfax on October
20, 2009.
The
following excerpts were editted
for the sake of brevity.
EQUALITY
FAIRFAX:
Welcome, Scott Surovell, to
Equality Fairfax's one-on-one
interviews with candidates from
Fairfax County who are running
for the Virginia House of
Delegates. Scott, there are
– as you're well aware
– there are thousands of
LGBT families that call the
Commonwealth of Virginia home,
including many here in Fairfax
County. And we would like
to know if you would support the
repeal of the Marshall-Newman
Amendment, which – as I'm
sure you also know
– defines marriage as solely
between one man and one woman,
and also bans recognition of any
legal status "approximating
the design, qualities,
significance, or effects of
marriage."
SCOTT
SUROVELL: Yes,
I would support that. I
opposed that amendment when it
was originally introduced.
I just don't think that the
government should be in the
business of telling people that
they shouldn't be able to
marry. I think that gay,
lesbian, bi-sexual people have a
lot to offer, and I think that
they ought to be able to express
their love in the ways that other
people do, by becoming
married. And I think,
again, that's something we need
to work towards, long-term.
I don't think the amendment's
gonna get repealed in the
short-term, but when and if it
ever comes up for a vote, I would
vote to repeal it.
EQUALITY
FAIRFAX:
Well, I would say if we continue
to elect people like you and Adam
Ebbin and those who do support
it, then it could
happen. Would you support
second parent adoption rights for
committed same-sex families?
SCOTT
SUROVELL: In
general, it sounds like a good
thing to me, but I haven't fully
thought out the consequences of
it. I mean, I should say,
that's something I would
generally be favorably
predisposed towards.
EQUALITY
FAIRFAX: You are
in favor of same-sex families
being able to co-adopt children,
is what is sounds like you're . .
. or second parent adoption . . .
SCOTT
SUROVELL:
Yeah. Totally. I'm in
favor of that. I have no
problem with gay couples adopting
children. I'm totally okay
with that.
EQUALITY
FAIRFAX:
Okay, well thanks, Scott.
We appreciate your
comments. And what we'd
like to do now is just offer you
a little bit of time – a
minute – for making some
closing comments.
SCOTT
SUROVELL:
Well, I appreciate the
opportunity to talk today, and to
talk to your members. I'm
optimistic that our society has
turned the corner, and that we're
starting to recognize that the
gay, lesbian, bi-sexual couples
have a lot to offer. And I
think we're definitely heading in
the right direction, society
wise, culturally. And as we
move forward into the future, I
look forward to being a partner
with I guess this group and other
groups as we begin to modernize
Virginia's laws and have what I
think would be a more sort of
just and fair society. So,
again, thanks for the opportunity
to talk to you today, and I hope
to garner your organization's
endorsement.
EQUALITY
FAIRFAX:
Well, just a quick detail on
that, Scott. We are
non-partisan and 501(c)(3), and
so we can't make endorsements,
but we definitely want to bring
your viewpoints to the voters,
which is why we're doing
this. But at any rate,
you're welcome and thank
you. We appreciate your
taking the time to talk to us.
SCOTT
SUROVELL: No
problem.
Okay, so we've
heard what Scott Surovell thinks about
gay marriage. This is what I think:
In the purest
sense, marriage 'copula cum muliere'
[meaning 'copulation with a woman']
relates to 'the maintenance' – or
better yet, 'the restoration'
– of the human family.
Marriage, in
essence, promotes family— the
natural result of our procreative
encounters. And in the Bible, it is
a term that is only ever used to denote
the responsible practice of sexual
intercourse between one man and one
woman.
To be certain, the
consummation of marriage is not something
that is accomplished when a couple
registers for a marriage license, or when
the marriage is solemnized before a
minister of the church, or when an
official registration of marriage has
been placed on public record.
According to the
Scriptures, the true consummation of
marriage can only be accomplished by an
auspiciously timed act of
copulation— better yet, a
lifetime of such acts, for those couples
living together as husband and wife, as
God intended, and as would be the case
under the framework of a 'formal'
marriage. Such couples are
instructed by biblical statute to
routinely unite themselves in the marital
embrace, being careful to avoid those
various forms of sexual deviancy that the
Bible specifically prohibits, but at the
same time being diligent, and filled with
the hope of bringing forth new life, with
each romantic encounter, by God's
enabling grace.
My friends, this
is what the Bible is talking about when
it talks about marriage. And
according to the Apostle Paul in 1
Corinthians 7:1-2, a 'formal' marriage,
observed in the proper manner, is
something that actually has the potential
of helping individuals to avoid the
practice of sexual immorality.
But here lately, in
places like Connecticut, Massachusetts,
New Hampshire, Vermont, New York, and
even right around the corner in
Washington, D.C., the forces that wish to
impose "gay marriage"
have sought to reconstruct this
institution in a way that God never
intended. And where marriage had
once been used to help individuals avoid
the practice of deviant behavior, it is
now used to help them justify
it, under the mechanism of phony
legislative enactments imposed by the
state.
More specifically,
the Bible categorizes homosexual activity
and similarly deviant forms of sexual
behavior, such as bestiality and others
of the sort, as incongruous sexual
relationships— relationships
that, in principle, are incapable
of producing life. They are
incapable of producing any offspring that
would benefit or help perpetuate the
human race. And this is why the
condoning of such behavior results in
negative consequences for the human
family.
And although a man
might bring himself to engage in this
sort of activity with another man, the
activity itself has absolutely no
potential for procreative result.
Neither could there be any such result if
he were to engage an animal. Or a
dead person— (which,
believe it or not, does happen.)
What places these
activities, including homosexuality,
under the same heading as other forms of
sexual shortcomings, even those that
might happen to occur in marriage, such
as onanistic sexual activity [coitus
incompletus] or the withholding of
sex in marriage [coitus abstentia],
is the fact that they all result in the
deficiency of marriage— not
because they fail to generate
new life, but because these practices
minimize even the very possibility
of generating new life.
But what sets
homosexuality, bestiality, necrophilia
apart from all other forms of sexually
deviant behavior is that they are
blatantly incongruous—
the two engaging parties being so
divergently mismatched and so completely
unsuited for each other, that the
possibility of generating new life does
not even exist in principle.
The real
question that we ought to be asking
politicians like Scott Surovell is this:
"In what way
does homosexual activity relate to the
maintenance or restoration of the human
family?"
This is where the
contrast becomes most obvious.
Where marriage between one man and one
woman has the potential, by God's
blessing, to provide an increase of life
to humanity on the whole, homosexual
activity does nothing more than confine
the human race to the dust of the
earth— relegating us to that
inescapably barren, sterile existence
that ends when we die.
And, by the way,
the Scriptures teach that although we are
not able to speak to God face to face, as
Moses did, we are able to gauge
God's blessing by focusing on the result
of our personal endeavors. In every
instance where God demonstrated his
blessings to the Israelites –
providing them with substantive
confirmation that they were on the right
track – he caused an increase
to occur, whether it was in the form of
granting them a bountiful harvest, a
burgeoning corral of livestock, or a
strong, healthy society of men, women,
and children. Conversely, when we
encourage our society, by legislative
enactment, to engage in deviant
activities such as homosexuality, we
encourage them to engage in things that
are clearly outside the realm of
God's blessing.
How do we know
this? Because it's demonstrated by
the absence of any increase, whatsoever.
In other words,
despite the twisted doctrines of those
forces that advocate abortion,
infanticide, euthanasia, and all things
of the sort, increase happens to be a
good thing! Even today, we know
that human beings are the greatest
natural resource on this earth.
More valuable than coal and timber.
More precious than iron or nickel.
In fact, parts of Europe and Asia are now
going through a bit of a population
crisis, their populations having been
driven so dangerously low, by anti-family
policy initiatives, that many of
these countries are now offering
financial incentives to their citizens,
encouraging them to have more than just
one or two kids.
In an article
written by Joseph Chamie, and published
by the Yale Center for the Study of
Globalization, the opening paragraph
reads as follows:
"The
fall of the Berlin Wall, the
collapse of the Soviet Union, and
the expansion of the European
Union are well known historic
events, at the close of the 20th
Century. Another event, at
least as significant, has largely
gone unnoticed. After
centuries of growth, Europe's
population is now on the decline,
and the impact of this trend will
be felt not only by the European
society and its economy, but also
globally."
The article goes on
to read:
"Europe's
future demographic decline is not
due to plague, starvation,
warfare, climate change, or some
other calamity. It's the result
of women and men choosing to have
fewer children than
needed to ensure
population replacement."
Wow.
I would actually go
one step further and say that it's the
result of the failure of our politicians
to protect the rights of our posterity in
the womb, and the failure of our
governments to protect the sanctity of
marriage.
Now let me ask you
something, and think about this:
Is this why we sent
Scott Surovell to Richmond? To
deliver the Commonwealth of Virginia into
the inescapable clutches of these
menacing political movements? To
allow the politicians to help these
groups phase the traditional family out
of modern society in such a decided and
deliberate manner? To take that
which God intended to be lush and
fertile, and allow the government to
render it infertile by legislative
enactment? To take that which is
known to be fully human and created in
the image of God, and allow the state to
declare it something less than
human? Something not quite up to
snuff, because of its class or
condition? Regrettably, the forces
that propel these movements share a
common disdain for good, responsible
statesmanship, and a common affection for
the type of political despotism that
politicians like Scott Surovell are eager
to deliver for the sake of fortifying,
preserving, and expanding their own
political power. It is by such
criminal means that these politicians
seek to oppress and subdue the entire
Commonwealth of Virginia.
This fellow, Scott
Surovell, is sympathetic to the ideology
that human beings are liabilities, though
common-sense tells the rest of us that
the human family is the greatest asset
this world has to offer.
Joe Glean -
Alexandria, Virginia Prospective Delegate for the 44th
House District
(End of transcript.)
Delegate
Scott Surovell is
deeply devoted to
the destruction of
family:
Jan.
20, 2010 -
(RICHMOND, VA) Scott
Surovell
participated in a press
conference hosted by
NARAL Pro-Choice
Virginia. This
photograph shows him
standing with the
organization's president,
Tarina Keene, former
"Director of
Development" for
Planned Parenthood of
Southeastern
Virginia. I am in
agreement with Bob
Marshall's assessment
that this organization
ought to call themselves
"Planned
Barrenhood",
as its central mission
has essentially been to
subdue the world
population through
political mechanisms.
April
29, 2010 -
(ALEXANDRIA, VA) A
small reception was held
in honor of Scott
Surovell and
five other pro-abortion
members of the Virginia
General Assembly, during
the 2010
Legislative Debriefing
session hosted by NARAL
Pro-Choice
Virginia. In
effect, these six
individuals were honored
for holding the
'slaveholder'
position— the
belief that personhood is
conditional. To
honor such individuals,
as I see it, is to
repudiate the good work
of all those who devoted
their service to the
cause of abolishing
slavery.
April
29, 2010 -
(ALEXANDRIA, VA) Scott
Surovell
discussed his opposition
to HB 1042, a bill
designed to bring
Virginia's Informed
Consent
law in linewith
modern ultrasound
technology.
Regrettably, abortion
centers tend to steer
their customers away from
such imaging
options. The reason
why, as NARAL
Pro-Choice Virginia reports,
is that mandatory
ultrasounds are bad for
business. Yet with
every subtle glimpse of
life in the womb, we gaze
upon that which is but a
simple reflection of God's
own sacred image.
February
25, 2011 -
(RICHMOND, VA) Scott
Surovell and
other members of the
Virginia General Assembly
came together to form The
Virginia Progressive
Caucus.
The group is made up of
Virginia lawmakers who
favor public policy
initiatives that are
pro-homosexuality and
pro-abortion. Our
freedom of religion has
been turned on its head
by leaders such as these,
who seek to impose their
doctrines of secular
humanism and moral
relativism— so
as to establish, by
legislative enactment, a
compulsory state
religion.
June
22, 2011 -
(ARLINGTON, VA) Scott
Surovell
endorsed the candidacy of
Jaime
Areizaga-Soto,
Democrat for State
Senate, claiming,
"We need Jaime in
Richmond taking on the
backwards policies of
Cuccinelli and standing
up for progressive
priorities."
That statement says a
mouthful, since the top
two issues of this
particular candidate
happen to be
abortion-on-demand and
the mandatory, statewide
indoctrination of
homosexuality. Hard
to believe? Stop by
his website
and see for yourself.
What it
says, in essence, is that
he completely
underestimates the value
of family and the
essential role that it
happens to play in human
society. In
neglecting the rights of
our posterity, Surovell
has turned a blind eye to
the destruction of our
traditional family, and
like Areizaga, he
shamelessly panders to
the political persuasions
of those who have sought
to substitute family with
artificial surrogates
that are decidedly
barren, sterile, and
deviant, conspicuously
unfulfilling, and
hopelessly inadequate.
