We need a face lift if this guy is who folks think of when Loudoun is mentioned.

Well said, though I would go even further. Not only is this is not the face of my county, this is not the face of my Republican party. Do we want to replicate the shear ignorance of Minnesota Bachmann here in Northern VA?

People like this are the reason that I am ashamed to be part of the GOP today. I will be independent until the ignorant religious reactionary wing is muted and not lauded in the political debate.

What happened to the cooperative GOP of the Reagan Administration. Tip O'Neil and Reagan worked together. With both Dick Black and Delgaudio, I am disgusted that Loudoun is becoming a punchline.

Horse Face

PATCH: >>>In my opinion, Delgaudio’s disparaging comments about LGBT people degrade himself more than anyone else. But, unfortunately, they also reflect badly on the county that keeps returning him to public office.<<<

???????????????
Someone pinch me because I simply cannot believe I'm reading this.

This is what DEMOCRACY and FIRST AMENDMENT are about!!!
.... Delgaudio was elected to the Board of Supervisors representing the Sterling District in November 1999, and was re-elected in 2003, 2007, and 2011 because MAJORITY of VOTERS decided that he represents their views the best .... imagine that!!!

This is what VOTING is about - people vote for the person that represents them. It would be FOOLISH for voters to vote against themselves, wouldn't it???

As for Delgaudio being elected with only 3,000 votes ... this is why President of the United States is NOT elected by majority, but by ELECTORAL COLLEGE, so North Dakota is NOT outvoted by New York, San Francisco, and Los Angeles ....

I am absolutely shocked that Sterling District voting for an anti-LGBT County Supervisor who does NOT approve of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender lifestyle should be considered a SHAME to the Loudoun County!!!
Again, you do NOT have to agree with the Sterling District's choice for a Supervisor, but you MUST respect their FIRST AMENDMENT.

Otherwise, it is YOU who brings the SHAME to the Loudoun County!!!

The Radical Homosexuals infiltrating the United States Congress have a plan:
Indoctrinate an entire generation of American children with pro-homosexual propaganda and eliminate traditional values from American society.

US Government should have NO AUTHORITY to force the Homosexual Agenda on the American people, much less their children.

Please, take a few minutes to sign Protect our Children's Innocence Petition, or contact your Senator and Congressman and let them know that you OPPOSE "Student Non-Discrimination Act", which should be more-accurately named "Homosexual Classrooms Act":

http://www.traditionalvalues.us/SNDApetition1.aspx?pid=f2f01

Are you speaking of yourself???
Keep homosexual education out of classrooms - yet, people of your ilk push it constantly on the rest of the students.

Hey, absolutely! Continue to voice your opinion as loud as you can, preferably during the election cycle. This way we can expose you for the ridiculous ignorant idiot that you are. Don't hide it. state it loud and clear so you can be identified.

You my friend are a dying breed. With age, you will all go the way of the Dodo Bird and be extinct in about 10 to 20 years and allow American society to move on.

I think George Will put it best about a year ago on a "This Week" broadcast when he said something like,
"... soon the fact that any person is homosexual will have the equivalent relevance to them being left handed or having blue eyes."

In other words, why do you or anyone else care who they love? It does not affect anyone else life in any way.

I'm wondering if this hypothetical "adopted daughter" became friends with your daughter would you allow the friendship? How would you explain her parents and why you disapprove? What if YOUR daughter turns out to be gay? What family unit are you trying to preserve? Do grandparents count? Aunts and Uncles? An unmarried man and woman?A Single parent? Are any of those home situations acceptable of being considered a "family", something that is worthy of being discussed in a school or in public that is also considered acceptable by you? or is it just the "gay" you disagree with? Do you also think it's OK that women and people of color have equal rights? At one time they also were considered to have an "agenda" as well.....look where we are now? see? It's all going to be fine, I promise. Just as soon as you go crawl back under your rock.

Yes AshburnMom, I am with you. When you hit "Reply" to the original message it places it below your reply looking like it was a reply to you and not the ignorant original message.

I am not a fan of Delgaugio in anyway. It is the reason that I left the Republican fold years ago. Why is the GOP flagrantly against human rights in the case of gay marriage? Its religion of course. Thump the bible as the trump card and you can not reason after that. I guarantee without equivocation that the above anti-gay is brought to you by a bible-thumping self-righteous bigot.

It sickens me to think that some people want to go backwards on gay rights. As I said earlier, its simply a matter of time for this neanderthals to die off and allow the rest of the human specie to evolve.

Why do you think only Bible literalists and fundamentalists do NOT approve of homosexuality???
I consider myself agnostic and I do NOT approve of homosexuality. There are many ATHEISTS who do NOT approve of homosexuality.

Frankly, it is completely irrelevant who approves and who does not. People who are OPPOSED to homosexuality should NOT be subjected to government pushing the homosexual lifestyle on them and their children through the public schools using their own TAX money - to do so is not only violating their First Amendment Rights; it is outright criminal.

Frankly, I don't believe you. Your objection on the "government pushing" homosexual lifestyle is just silly. For Loudoun County schools you can "opt-out" of Family Life Ed and not let your kids hear anything that might burn their little ears.

Furthermore, I don't believe that your objection is not religiously basis because there is no other rational reason for objecting.

I will bet beyond any doubt that you are either ...
(a) evangelical
(b) catholic or
(c) simply a bigoted homophobic nut case.

Stay classy my friend :)

Clearly, we have CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS and FIRST AMENDMENT dilemma here, don't we?

Somehow, YOU believe:
1) "only" Evangelicals and Catholics oppose homosexuality which makes them religious "bigots"
2) agnostics and atheists are NOT allowed to be opposed to homosexuality in YOUR world
3) your logic is that "rational" people by default must tolerate and accept homosexuality - no exceptions

Again, you are playing with other people's First Amendment Rights, which is NEVER a good idea. Think about it without being BIGOTED yourself.

Text of the first amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Please explain to me where teaching and or knowing about loving committed homosexual relationships is a violation of a first amendment right? It seems to me that within my first amendment rights (freedom of speech) we can and will discuss it as much as we would like and no one can stop us...you can just opt out of the conversation if you don't like it, because that is *your* right.

Bottom line, you don't have to like it, or agree with it, but I get to say it. And so does the author of this piece. Please come up with a better response because the "First Amendment" one is getting tired.

>>>Congress shall make NO LAW respecting an establishment of RELIGION, or prohibiting the FREE EXERCISE thereof; or abridging the FREEDOM of SPEECH, or of the PRESS; or the RIGHT of the PEOPLE PEACEABLY to ASSEMBLE, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."<<<

@AshburnMom,
The Constitution cannot say it more clearly than it already does.

It seems that your Freedom of Speech applies only to YOU: you can say anything and everything you want, but the same Constitutional Right does not apply to people who do not agree with your logic and your way of life.

"The right of the people PEACEABLY to ASSEMBLE" means that people who OPPOSE homosexuality can gather in their own churches or their own private organizations, they can start their own schools and YOU cannot stop them or prevent them from doing so.
This is First Amendment at work.

Build your own sandbox with your own rules if you want to make homosexuality part of your life.

This is why SCHOOL VOUCHERS are very important and will allow for a more FAIR distribution of TAX dollars allocated for public schools. Direct TAX CREDITS will work as well.

AshburnMom: "That way your sheltered kids can grow up to be bigots and homophobes and never function in the real world where, gasp, there are homosexual people everywhere."

Since when being a HETEROSEXUAL person who is opposed to homosexuality and wanting to shelter one's own children from homosexual lifestyle and teaching them HETEROSEXUAL MONOGAMOUS moral values is called "crazy" or "unconstitutional"???

I am exercising MY LEGAL RIGHTS the same way you are trying to assert your legal rights. There is nothing wrong with building more sandboxes to play in.

But this is precisely my point: LIBERALS and pro-LGBT activists push their moral values and agendas on other people, even when told to play in their own sandbox. STOP.

Several comments in this thread have been deleted. Opinions are great, but let's try not to attack each other in the process. Thanks.

@ Dusty,
Thank you for being OBJECTIVE and not taking sides in this discussion.
We are all protected by the First Amendment. It cannot be a one way street.

No government has the right to force moral values on any person, especially values that an individual or citizen does not approve of or considers immoral and unnatural.

So now we deleting the posts of people who call out opinions they believe to be bigoted? What about the free speech of those people?

If they go crying to Daddy will they be protected too?

Okay, let me put you point of "immorality" into a better concrete argument and hopefully the posting police will not delete it for your you.

In my lifetime Virginia had a law that people of different races could not marry. They also claimed that is was immoral for them to even socialize together, let alone date and marry. Today it is totally ridiculous for this to even be discussed again. We have grown. Evolved.

To me the parallel with your opinion on gay marriage obvious and compelling. It's obviously to me that you have never had a close friend or relative who is gay, otherwise you would have to look at them in the face and say that you are disgusted with them ... and if you have then I am even sorrier for you.

As I recall, you were not exercising your right to the free speech, you were abusing your right to the free speech.

Calling people who do not share your views or your pro-LGBT agenda most disrespectful names is NOT a good way to have a civilized discussion. Your views on life are not necessarily my views on life and you must learn to respect that.

You simply cannot assume that being pro Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender is a "PROGRESSIVE" way to look at life and the entire humanity and therefore EVERYONE should accept this view on homosexuality. There are many people who hold an OPPOSITE view on this issue.

Why did you chose RACE as your legal proof, if I may ask???
Just for your information, the blacks were NOT the only people who suffered slavery. There were MANY people and nationalities that were enslaved at one point or another throughout the human history.

As for this country, Not so long ago 14 years old girls were "forced" to marry much older men. Today we do not allow it because we believe it is wrong and harmful.

Not so long ago women were not allowed to vote. Today women hold public offices.

I think this is YOUR problem - you shamelessly ride on the "wrongs" of yesterday and think you can justify about anything. Too bad you are not a very good student of history because your "proofs" for LGBT legal and moral equality fail the most basic test of human decency.

I frankly have no idea what you are trying to argue right now. You are all over the map and make no sense at all.

The argument is simple and you even said it yourself. Some things that were once thought to be righteous long ago are now considered wrong in hindsight. Women's vote as per you example above.

As little as 30 years ago being gay was illegal in many states. Now it is not.

Apparently since you believe it to be so immoral, you wish to go back and make it illegal once more, correct? And if not, I have no idea what you trying to argue?

The First Amendment - I do NOT share your pro-LGBT views and do NOT wish you or the government impose those views on me or my Family.

You just cannot accept the fact that some people do NOT approve of homosexuality and never will. The First Amendment does apply to EVERYONE, including those who are opposed to homosexuality ...... imagine that.

What is your problem???
I have the right to know who I am VOTING for!

Alan Smithee: As you can see above from my past conversation earlier this week, I would simply give up trying to discuss this with her because it is quite obvious there is no rational reasoning capable from her.

However, I do believe sunlight is the best disinfectant. We should allow her and Mr Delgaudo to continue their spouting off. Those on the peripheral of this discussion can see what irrational and incoherent their views truly are.

This approach has worked for years and will continue to work as Darwinian Evolution proceeds.

VA_in_VA wrote: "This approach has worked for years and will continue to work as Darwinian Evolution proceeds."

I hope you see a humor in your statement :-) :-) :-)
You want ME to VOTE for YOUR liberal pro-LGBT candidate so YOU can claim a Darwinian Victory because you are smarter and your liberal pro-LGBT views are closer to life than mine ..... therefore your side is winning ....
.... all you have to do is to make ME vote against myself.
Almost funny. Definitely clever.

Election and voting is about Representation and the First Amendment, NOT Darwinian Evolution.

I'd rather NOT vote at all than vote AGAINST myself.