New Dem ED had attacked conservative Christian group for views, opposed to Republican position on traditional marriage.

Pat Powers

Paula Hawks’ new hire for Executive Director for the South Dakota Democrat Party Stacey Burnette appears to have issues with those who stand on the side of traditional marriage, and has attacked at least one candidate for an endorsement from a South Dakota Christian organization.

In April of 2018, during his race Burnette attacked now Mayor Paul TenHaken for being endorsed by the South Dakota Family Heritage Alliance, a group advocating for Christian values, claiming that it’s some sort of hate group:

I have been following the mayoral election closely and was very disappointed to hear that you actively sought out and accepted an endorsement from the Family Heritage Alliance. While this group claims to represent Christian values, its only devotion has been to support hate and discrimination against the LGBT, Muslims and people of color in South Dakota.

By accepting the FHA’s support, you are turning your backs on a large population of folks in Sioux Falls who’ve been a target of their legislative bullying in Pierre.

Read that here.

In one breath, she calls her own family loving, and calls people who don’t agree with her as supportive of “hate and discrimination.” Which doesn’t seem very loving.

And for promoting their values, the Family Heritage Alliance was accused of “legislative bullying.”

Just a month later, in May of 2018, Burnette went on KELOland in a story critical of the Republican Primary candidates for their positions on traditional marriage being between one man and one woman as noted in a televised debate held at that time:

With SDDP Chair Paula Hawks’ hiring of Burnette, it appears that the South Dakota Democrat Party is giving up all appearances of being a place where those professing to be Christians will be welcome, and traditional values will be tolerated.

Over the last eight years, Democrats claimed to be a place where they were ok with people such as former SDDP Chair Ann Tornberg professing she was pro-life. But that time may be over.

This could be a dark time for them, as they make people who hold traditional values feel more and more unwelcome and pushed out, accelerating their exodus from the party of FDR and Kennedy as social justice warriors and the hard left cement their hold over the South Dakota Democrat Party.

21 thoughts on “New Dem ED had attacked conservative Christian group for views, opposed to Republican position on traditional marriage.”

  1. Good for her. As long as there are demonstrable legal benefits associated with marriage that are not provided to civil unions, there is no place for government to prevent those marriages on the basis of sexual orientation.

      2. 1) Actually, your view is your opinion. Facts are matters not subject to interpretation or opinion.

        2) What are those demonstrable legal benefits not extended to civil unions? I know of no such distinction but welcome you enlightening me.

        1. Federal benefits are not extended to civil unions unless they are converted to marriages. This means: no social security, no federal employee benefits nor petition for immigration benefits. Further, no filing jointly for taxes. This doesn’t even get into the morass that was state by state laws before Obregefell came along.

          1. My understanding is it depends on the nature of the state’s civil unions meeting certain standards of “permanence of household” (as in not easily formed or broken). Which means all states just have to create such a permanence and federal benefits are extended.

              1. Don’t expect Troy to know the law, let alone understand it.
                About a year ago I challenged him on his [lack of] knowledge and understanding of the death penalty laws & procedures. He left in a huff with one of his oft-used drama queen exits.

        2. An Ohio politician posted she blames mass shootings on “drag queen advocates” and “homosexual marriage.” Use whatever terminolgy you want, it’s clear the breakdown of the traditional family has resulted in mental illness and perversities, and is causing all kinds of problems for our nation.

          1. This is terrible reasoning. One politician saying gay marriage caused a mass shooting does not make it so. It doesn’t make sense when this woman says it, and it doesn’t make sense when the dems say it about Trump.

  4. How is discussing the legal benefits of marriage not relevant to the republican stance on marriage, Pat?

    1. The post was with regards to Democrat Leadership’s hostility to the people who identify as having traditional values or being Christian in their base.

      1. In the context of traditional marriage. The resultant comments addressed that point squarely. Just because you find the arguments raised inconvenient in no way means they aren’t “on topic.”

        1. I don’t find them inconvenient. I’m saying the discussion is not terribly on topic.

  5. Can someone disagree with portions of your article and express that disagreement while remaining “on-topic?”

  6. When a marriage between a man and a woman ends in divorce would you still be called traditional?

    1. If you are suggesting that the worst of man-woman marriage is somehow comparable to the best of same-sex marriage, then you win.

      On the other hand, if you wish to compare the average child of man-woman marriage to the average child of same-sex marriage, then we might have a worthy discussion.

Comments are closed.