Todd Epp Blog Post Full of Lies and Deception

Todd Epp is stating or repeating lies about Amendment C.

The post seems to imply that Jon Hoadley, who is leading the effort to derail South Dakota's marriage protection amendment, isn't a homosexual. I guess I don't know for sure that he is, but consider the following:


- He has founded several chapters of Stonewall Democrats, a homosexual organization

- He makes reference to "thousands of gay and lesbian citizens across the state" and how "we are coming together"

- In another piece, he says "we hear the voices of those in our group...the gay, white, upper class, traditionally gendered men can now be out at work...Yep. We've made it." He also says " the drag queens...paved the way for our sexual freedom. If it weren't for the people that couldn't hide their gender, we never would have had the option of openly seeking same-gender relationships...Now if you'd excuse me, I see a pair of gold eyelashes with my name all over them"

- He was guest speaker at a "Queer Guide to Political Activity" event in 2005


His "lifestyle" seem to be little in question to me. If Hoadley is indeed a modern homosexual, he would normally be proud of the fact, so I don't understand why Epp would want to imply that Hoadley isn't.

Epp also implies the homosexual lifestyle is completely "normal, natural and healthy," even though the evidence is overwhelming that homosexuality is a practice riven with health hazards (STDs, AIDS, injuries common to doing things with your body that it was never meant to do, depression, substance abuse, suicide).

Some studies have found that homosexuality takes at least 20 years off your lifespan. The lifespan of the average practicing homosexual is somewhere in the low 40s.

Epp also says

As Jon pointed out, domestic partners have lost health care coverage in Michigan under a similar law and single people have lost domestic abuse protections under a similar Ohio law.

But this is yet another lie being put forward by those who want to scare people who would otherwise have the good sense to vote to protect marriage from homosexual activists and activist judges.

The truth is, after Michigan passed their marriage protection amendment, their was a legal case to determine whether government employees (i.e. those paid by the taxpayers) could receive domestic partner benefits. A Michigan judge ruled last year that domestic partner benefits are "benefits of employment, not benefits of marriage."

The Ohio case is also a red herring. Ohio, where the laws are different than in South Dakota, has two cases dealing with the marriage protection amendment and domestic violence laws. One has been upheld that the marriage protection amendment in no way effects domestic violence protection, and the other is still in the appeal process. And even if they did lose domestic violence law protection, simple assault is still illegal, and restraining orders are available to anyone, regardless of domestic status or lack thereof.

In any case, South Dakota's law regarding domestic violence, SDCL 25-10-1 is different than that of Ohio. It is very broad, only requiring that at some point the victim and perpetrator have "lived together." No requirement for actual marriage is stated anywhere in the law.

Amendment C will have no effect whatsoever on existing laws, rights or privilieges. It will only preserve and maintain the definition of marriage as it has always been.

How pathetic that the Left feels it has to resort to lies and deception just to have a hope of winning at the ballot box.