R I S E   T O   T H E   R E S C U E









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  I don't think the amendment's gonna get repealed in the short-term, but when and if it ever comes up for a vote, I would vote to repeal it.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."


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:
     Honored as an abortion "champion" by NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia, 2010.
     Earned a 100% pro-abortion rating from Planned Parenthood Advocates of Virginia, 2010.
     Earned a 100% pro-abortion rating from NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia, 2010, 2011.
     Earned the endorsement of NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia Political Action Committee, 2009.

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 line with 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.

^   BACK TO TOP   ^

Authorized and paid for by Joe Glean, candidate for Delegate.
Not Authorized by any other candidate.