SC Republican candidate says no money for ‘Queers’

At the recently held Anderson County Republican Women’s Legislative Forum in South Carolina, Sherri Hodges, who is challenging incumbent Don Chapman (R – SC House District 8), made what could easily be construed as a derogatory, dismissive remark in answer to a question posed by the moderator.

The Forum featured nine candidates vying for various offices. It was held on Friday evening, May 15, at the Jesse Taylor Veterans Center and is available for viewing on YouTube.

Hodges, who has never held elected office in South Carolina, came to the state from Southern California, where she served as a personal assistant in the California State Board of Education and also ran her own campaign management firm. Earlier in her career, she was director of government affairs for the Greater San Diego Association of Realtors.

She moved to the South Carolina upstate around 2016 and became active in upstate politics. Her first foray was to run against incumbent Don Chapman in the 2024 primary. She received a decent 43.8 percent of the vote against Chapman’s 56.2 percent.

She and her family attend Concord Baptist Church, which is affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention and is neither welcoming nor affirming of LGBTQ+ people. It refers to the anti-LGBTQ+ Baptist Faith and Message 2000 as its doctrinal touchstone.

Her Christian Nationalist leanings are seen in her affiliation with the Salt and Life Council, whose stated purpose is “promoting biblical moral values in the public sector.”

Hodges is also affiliated with Moms for Liberty, an organization that, according to an October 15, 2021, article in the Washington Post, targets “curriculums that touch on LGBTQ rights, race, and discrimination” in public schools.

At the forum, when asked by the moderator what line item she would remove from the state budget, her immediate response was “the lesbian queer stuff…not into promoting that.” Then she quickly added, “The Arts Commission.”

Given the context of the remark and the way in which it was delivered, there can be little doubt that it was a derogatory, biased, homophobic response.