I’m Totally Sending This Article to My Dad

Out & About has an article about Stacey Campfield. I was going to commend his use of ‘acme’ in an almost non-awkward sounding way. But instead, I’m stuck on this part:

To his credit, Sen. Campfield has managed to stand proud as a single man among a family-obsessed constituency. Like it or not, there is no question that he is a bit of a maverick standing by his convictions.

I’m sorry, Out & About, but I’m going to need a little bit more here. How is not being married standing by your convictions? What convictions does Campfield have that have lead him to reject marriage? Is it difficult to not be married in our society? And by that, I mean, ‘married’ as a verb. Yes, there are a lot of pressures on single folks to get married, but it’s not like, when you hit 35, if you’re still not married, you get handed a bride or groom (depending on which one you need) and you’re forced to walk down the aisle. All that happens is that your parents tell you that you’d better get married soon because you’re starting to sound like an old maid on Facebook.

Are people in Knoxville more family-obsessed than other places? What does “family-obsessed” even mean? Are Campfield’s constituents trying to force him to get married?

How, exactly, does not being married mean that one is a maverick?

I need to know this crap so that I have something to say at family get-togethers. “Betsy, why aren’t you getting married? Do you want to be a weird old maid too fat for love?” “Actually, family, I am a proud, maverick with anti-family-obsessed convictions.” “Um… I don’t know what that means.” “Yeah, me neither, but apparently it works for Stacey Campfield.”

16 thoughts on “I’m Totally Sending This Article to My Dad

  1. I kind of took that at a back-handed compliment saying that here is a guy who is advocating a value system that he himself doesn’t live (nuclear family). Or, perhaps a dog whistle insinuation about something else…

  2. Well, I hope that’s it. Otherwise, this is the second shitty superpower I’ve found I have in the last week–eye leaking very mildly caustic gunk and being a maverick by not getting married, even though I secretly think being married would be very nice.

  3. Ahh…then I am hearing a “standing proud” dog-whistle during this, Gay Pride Week.

  4. “To his credit, Sen. Campfield has managed to stand proud as a single man among a family-obsessed constituency . Like it or not, there is no question that he is a bit of a maverick standing by his convictions .”

    I think that works better.

  5. “To his credit, Sen. Campfield has managed to stand proud as a single man [wink wink] among a family-obsessed constituency [eyeroll, grimace] . Like it or not, there is no question that he is a bit of a maverick [nudge] standing by his convictions [wink again].”

  6. Dog-whistling’s a possibility, but I think it was just a (somewhat) clumsily written observation of how unusual he is. His type is usually married with kids: they’re part of the marketing package for “pro-family” pols.

  7. Yes, ’tis true, RogAb. But I still think, given his track record,that there is a meta-issue with this particular statistical outlier.

    He is far, far too hostile to women-whom I am led to believe by the language of his proposals and interviews he views as wholly Other–and appeasing to He-Man interest groups to be “just a single guy”. He doesnt come off to me as a traditional homosexual, but I do think there is either a nontraditional sexual dynamic there, if not a paraphilia of some sort.

  8. I always simply make the assumption that an unmarried homophobe extremist is a closet case and move on. I don’t know why there’s any reason to speculate further.

  9. I was about to smack the mag for lack of fact-checking for calling him “Sen.” when he’s “The Rep,” then realized I’d better check it myself.

    My horror at learning that he has indeed been elevated to that (formerly) august body known as the Tennessee Senate by his constituency (I know, I should’ve paid attention, but I generally don’t, to him) was slightly tempered by seeing what he’s posted on his blog today (June 7).

    I would suggest that this is a clever, subtle method of easing into an announcement. Except we’re talking about Campfield, so neither of those words apply.

    Would it be amazing if this whole thing (the don’t-say-gay law and all the misogynistic stuff) has really been a plot to destroy the party from the inside?

    A gal can dream.

  10. Whoa! Dream on Mme. Grandfille! You certainly have a passionate imagination ;-).

    I was a little surprised, actually that O&A was as gentle with him as it was, especially giving him an opportunity to try to explain his rationale for his bizarre legislation. I was frankly impressed. That being said, I thought the standing proud bit was delicious…

Comments are closed.