Skip to content

Dare To Dream Responds To Candidate Moadus’s Answers On LGBT Issues


shape-writing_fabien_udr_01Having several days to look at a response to an email I sent out to 14th Ohio District Congressional Candidate Dan Moadus, I would like to respond to his statements.

First let me restate the question: “Sir, Where do you stand on, 1) Hate Crimes Legislation? 2) LGBT Discrimination for Jobs and Housing? 3) DOMA? and 4) Don’t ask, Don’t Tell?”

1. I have been opposed to so called “hate crimes legislation” since its inception in 1990, and certainly its new iteration with the Matthew Shepard bill that extends the protected class to include sexual deviants.
I am opposed to it for more than one reason. First I don’t think any one person’s life is more valuable than any other’s. If someone is murdered, I don’t think the courts should be involved in trying to determine what was in the perpetrators mind. Additionally I think it is a curb on free speech. As cruel as this may sound, I remember when hating someone wasn’t illegal in America, as long as it wasn’t translated into violence or some other illegal action. It was viewed as a logical extension of free speech.

This is the closest in any of the answers that I will come to almost agreeing with the candidate, but only in the statement that I believe all violent crimes are “hate crimes” and there shouldn’t have to be a need to distinguish between crimes, but there is, and that’s where the similarities break down.

The first glaring item that jumps out in this response is the term “sexual deviants” to define homosexuals. This statement alone borders on bigotry as we will see in another response that Mr. Moadus believes “homosexuals” don’t choose their lifestyle but are born gay.

The Matthew Shepard Act is a measured and a very necessary action to address the problem of violence against people based upon actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender, gender identity and disability.

Many criminal statues, including the murder statue, are what are referred to as “specific intent laws.” The courts are in the business of determining one’s “intent”; that is, what’s in one’s mind. It is a fundamental part of criminal prosecution. Worst of any part of the answer is that Mr. Moadus feels it’s okay to hate, it’s perfectly acceptable.

2. I have always believed that in a free country, people should be free to hire or rent to any one they so choose, and government shouldn’t impose it’s will on these relationships. I have faith enough in Americans to trust that most of them will treat people fairly without being forced to. It really comes down to a freedom issue. And I’ll always opt for freedom.

What about the freedom of an African-American family, or Hispanic family, to have a decent place to live, not just the “right” of the LGBT Community? To think that people will do the right thing without a law to make them, is phenomenally naive and leans towards bigotry since Mr. Moadus is saying that people should be free to discriminate.

When has it ever been the case that regulation isn’t necessary?

People don’t do what’s right or good. This is why we have laws. Let’s do away with murder laws too, shall we? Because most people are not going to kill anyone and for those who wish to, the government should not impose its will upon them.

Even God saw fit to give people “laws”, ten specifically, and what we Christians call the Old Testament and the Hebrews call the Torah, generally.

I want to take a side road at this point. Alan Greenspan, when fed Chairman, trusted the banks to do the right thing, he trusted the markets to regulate themselves and we found out that Government had to step in to protect.

3. I believe that no marriage should be recognized other than a marriage between one woman and one man. I don’t have any ill feelings for gays and lesbians, because I do not believe that they chose their sexual orientation. They certainly can protect their relationships by many other legal means, but it should not include marriage.

On this statement I have to just shout out, “WHAT IS HE TALKING ABOUT!”

What about interracial marriages? They weren’t protected until the late 1960’s. What other legal means could they have used and what other legal means can the LGBT Community use?

As one of our Dare To Dream writers stated after viewing this answer interpreted it to mean, “So even tho you have not chosen to be what you are, you are not entitled to the same rights as I. You are less than me. You were born that way. All men are not created equal. I will always be superior than you.”

4. I think the military should be able to decide what works best for them. If they want to prohibit gays from serving, that’s fine with me. The defense of our Country is far to important to sacrifice for the sake of social engineering.

I feel that Mr. Moadus’s answer on DOMA is basically a “cop out.” As long as there is prejudices, there will be problems with blacks, women and gays in the military. But we have learned that blacks and whites can serve well together, and there is still is racial prejudice, but the integration of the military has not jeopardized national security.

Mr. Moadus may have done a fine job as a Girard City Councilman, especially on several of their financial problems, but as a Congressman we are not impressed and feel his use of the name Democrat is a ruse to garner votes in a “Valley” of people who traditionally have a strong D leaning. There is nothing about his answers to any of our questions which agree with any part of the Democrat Platform.

4 Comments leave one →
  1. elecpencil permalink
    09/13/2009 5:04 pm

    Moadus doesn’t believe in “hate crime legislation.” He does believe in attending and speaking at “hate filled tea bag events.” I’ve heard Moadus interviewed on WKBN radio and I didn’t agree with one thing he stands for. He is moot as he could never beat Tim Ryan. Truth is I’d even hold my nose and vote for Jim Traficant before I’d vote for Modus. Traficant voted with the Republicans 60% of the time. I’m sure Moadus would vote with the GOP 100%.

  2. Gina9223 permalink
    09/20/2009 7:07 pm

    1. Gosh, not determine what was in the perpetrator mind? OK, no ‘Gay-Panic’ or ‘Trans-Panic’ defense then! If he doesn’t want the ‘law’ to query what was on a perp’s mind then I don’t want to know what the fool was thinking…come to think of it. I don’t want to know what this idiot is thinking. He has a very simplistic view of the world.

    2. He’ll opt for freedom always so long as it doesn’t adversely impact him. (The ‘Bender Defense’ aptly named after a cartoon character named Bender on Futureama. “I’m all for discrimination just so long as it ain’t me!)

    3. I say we limit marriage to one per customer. You only get one state/federally recognized marriage. If you blow that you forfeit all rights and benefits and cannot remarry ever again. Maybe a limited civil partnership of some kind.

    4. DADT, OK, I was in the Navy for 20 years. If congress let them do what ever they wanted we’d have 5 billion dollar square riggers equipped with sharks that have lazer beams stappled to their asses! Congresses job is to tell the military how to do its job! And Gay’s, Lesbian’s, Bi’s, Trans and Intersex citizens already serve! God, he’s sounds like he’s too stupid for even government work.

    Over all, I’d say he has either a white robe or a brown shirt, heck maybe both, in his closet.

  3. 09/20/2009 8:26 pm

    Gina, thank you for your very well thought out comment. I concur!

  4. 11/26/2009 2:55 pm

    Dear Tristan,
    When you E-mailed me some questions regarding gay and lesbian issues, I wasn’t aware that you were going to comment on my response on this site. Someone just pointed this out to me today. Even though it was a couple of months ago, I would like to comment on some of the remarks my response generated.

    You misunderstood the part of my comment where I said that the Hate Crimes bill extended the protected class to include “sexual deviants”. I wasn’t referring to homosexuals as they were already covered by the original bill. I was referring to the fifty some other classes, including pedophiles, that were included in the latest changes.

    On the marriage issue, you seemed to think that I would have a problem with interracial marriages as well as gay marriages. That is not the case. I see no problem with interracial marriages.

    You also took issue with my statement that people should be able to rent to, or not rent to anyone they choose, asking what about the African American or Hispanic, and did they have a right to decent housing. Here again, I side with individual rights and property rights. There is no right to decent housing in America, at least as stated in our Constitution, but you do have a right to use your property as you see fit.

    Further on in your critique you remarked that the free market had failed to regulate itself. The free market never fails to regulate itself. You may not like its reaction to events, but it doesn’t matter. Neither you, the Fed Chairman, or Congress can change what the free market dictates. It can be forestalled, and manipulated, and delayed, but its reactions, and corrections are inevitable as the tides.

    If you or any of your friends care to discuss these, or any other issues further, I would be happy to oblige……….Dan Moadus

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: