As the Economy Collapses, Gregoire to Announce Support of Gay Marriage

by lewwaters

As we all know, or economy continues collapsing around us.  The debt grows along with interest payments on it. Unemployment remains high, Clark County entering our 4th year of double digit unemployment numbers.

With taxes, fees and rates increasing while wages decline, our governor called a special session to deal with a projected $2 Billion budget deficit. When they convened, we only face a $1.6 Billion budget deficit.

So what it our lame duck governor’s chosen move now? To publicly announce her support for same-sex marriage at an announced Wednesday, Jan. 4, 2012 news conference.

“Leaders of Washington United for Marriage, a coalition of gay-rights, civil-liberties, labor and religious groups, announced in November they plan to pressure the Legislature this coming session to pass a marriage equality law in 2012.”

Citizens are not expected to have a voice in the process as it will be decided by a majority Democrat legislature in Olympia.

Also, as pointed out before, this sham “equality in marriage” is anything but as it still excludes several others. No one has yet explained how, if same sex marriage is so beneficial,” two brothers might not marry under it. Or, first cousins, even though a marriage of first cousins performed in another state is legally recognized.

In pushing the “everything but marriage” bill a couple years ago, supporters made a lot of noise of it pertaining to seniors. Yet, the “equality in marriage” will not allow an elderly parent to marry an adult offspring so that benefits or other legal matters might be expedited, as was claimed for “everything but marriage.”

But, with our economy collapsing, facing staggering unemployment, should same sex marriage be the priority?

Should citizens continue to be denied voting their preference, as every state so f ar that legalized Gay Marriage did so legislatively, not asking citizens in their state?

Should a petition drive begin to place another initiative on the ballot, as was done with R-71, if you face intimidation, whether you sign or not, you can thank current GOP candidate for governor, Rob McKenna has he pressed all the way to the US Supreme Court for your name, signature and address to be available to Gay activists and placed on web sites with search engines so you may be “contacted” about your views.

Shahram Hadian opposes such measures.

Rob McKenna fought to make your name and address known to gay activists.

119 Responses to “As the Economy Collapses, Gregoire to Announce Support of Gay Marriage”

  1. Politically correct bigotry is a democrat watchword.

    As for McKenna, while I don’t know who I am voting for, I know who I’m not… and he’s at number 2 on my list behind his fellow democrat Jay Inslee.


  2. America will never accept “Gay Marriage” no matter what the politicians do, Lew. A marriage is only between a man and a woman and will never be anything else no matter what “laws” are passed. Period.


  3. Accepting and legalizing are two different concepts, Jack.

    Once legalized, the effort to indoctrinate the youth to cast aside Christianity and further erode traditional families moves full speed ahead.

    It isn’t for people our age this continues to be fought, but for those coming along after us.


  4. Marriage is (and should be) a religious ceremony. Government should have nothing to do or say about it, one way or the other. My wife and I have had a strong marriage for almost 30 years, and it would have survived quite well with or without government approval.


  5. Marriage isn’t “exclusive” to Christianity, Lew. And government doesn’t have to “erode” marriage, because marrige has “eroded” itself since women drifted off into Feminism.

    Government has stuck it’s ugly nose into lots of things where it doesn’t belong, Tom.


  6. It started even before that, Jack.

    Government should never had gotten involved in marriage


  7. When us old geezers die off, people will wonder what all the fuss was about.

    “Civil Union” means the same thing as “marriage,” When we use two terms to mean the same thing, that’s political correctness – so just use the correct word.

    (If you’re simply anti-gays and all that shit – that’s a whole ‘nother debate.)


  8. Martin, many of us supported the idea of a civil union to give gays some recognition.

    It is the gay activists who rejected civil unions and are hell bent on full legal marriage, but also want to retain “protected status.”

    And yes, the hope is that future people, after decades of indoctrination in public schools, will fully accept the liberal politically correct feel good point of view.

    Never mind they might not be able to speak legibly, write a coherent sentence or add two and two.

    After all, along with this agenda we see the Obama administration wanting to ban asking for a High School diploma for employment.

    By the way, how do you account for us, future generations away from the Roman Empire and others who openly embraced homosexuality, being able to look back and see how their societies collapsed?

    Then too, why has no state with legalized gay marriage allowed their citizens to vote on it?


  9. I agree, Lew, that gay marriage is a liberal idea, and Liberals do believe the resistance will be gone in a couple generations.

    The legal system views gay rights as a liberty issue, which is Constitutional, so not subject to a public vote.

    I dare say, the Greek and Roman empires lasted a lot longer than the American one will – by your logic we should all become gay.


  10. Martin, “marriage” isn’t going to be “re-defined” by Gays or anyone else. The average American knows what the meaning of “marriage” is and will never accept a re-definition to include “Gay marriage”. It just isn’t going to happen in this generation or succeeding generations.

    Gay “activity” will always be viewed as being “queer”.


  11. Marriage – Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster …
    The state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law.

    Clark County Washington Will continue to honor Marriage as it has always been, between 1 Man & 1 Woman.


  12. Martin, best I recall from school and other studies, not every Greek or Roman became Gay. They were just legally mandated to accept homosexuality and even they did not legalize same sex marriage.

    However, both societies did collapse.

    How you arrive at “my logic” says we all should be gay, when I stand opposed to gay marriage is beyond me. That’s a stretch I cannot fathom.

    However, whether one accepts creationism or evolution, there are different sexes for a reason, a reason homosexuality cannot perform.

    But, the bottom line of this post is, with our economy in a continuing decline, unemployment high, wages stagnant and declining an families hurting, why does gay marriage jump to the front or priorities?

    Perhaps the reason we are in such a pickle is because politicians continue to focus in the wrong areas, raising taxes, pushing for social engineering, deciding to change social behaviors and pushing the liberal feel good agenda while allowing the country to fall apart.

    That alone will bring about the wanted change, a collapse of the American society.


  13. That’s why I continue to see a bloody Revolution in America’s future, Lew. The American people are only going to put up with this kind of crap for so long…

    “Keep your guns well-oiled”.


  14. Eventually people will find it odd and horribly unfair that there was a time that same sex couples could not marry. Just like women not voting and people being considered the property of another, this too will become the way it always should have been.


  15. John, I imagine you do feel like that could happen. But I feel future generations will look back and wonder what the hell was wrong with this generation.

    No body but the fringe looks back to Greece or Rome and sees that is how society should be.

    But again, with our economy still in the tank, is this even a matter that should be taking precedence now?


  16. John, if society “swings” towards anything, it is “fairness”. If “marriage” is to be re-defined, then it should not be done for such a tiny deviancy of the population such as Gays.

    If “marriage” is to be re-defined, then everybody should be able to “marry” anybody or anything that they wish in order to be “fair”. That would include ALL deviancies as well, such as Pedophilia, Incest, Polygamy, Love of machines, and Beastiality.

    You should be able to “marry” your 8 year-old daughter or your personal “rotor toy”, or both at the same time.

    I mean, “Let’s be fair here”.


  17. Jack, are you using the slippery slope argument? If gays marry, sheep come next. The domino theory of interpersonal relationships: gays, animals, appliances, Democrats.


  18. We’re already seeing the slippery slope, Martin

    No sooner did they overturn DA/DT than transgenders began pushing for equality in Military Service, transsexuals want the VA to pay for gender change surgeries and gay activists are using the repeal of DA/DT to demand same sex marriage recognition.

    So much for only wishing to serve their country.


  19. No Martin, I’m using the “Fair For All” argument. If we’re going to do something, let’s make it “fair for all” or not do it. It’s just that simple.


  20. Jack, eliminating marriage seems a little extreme, even for you.


  21. The conversation has degraded to a level low enough to make me ill. I am very weary of the whole gay or not gay rights issue. Sexuality is not a discussion that under the law of the federal government has any right to enter the workplace nor therefore should it enter the education of or indoctrination of our children. Don’t ask don’t tell was and is the law in the private sector and should be in military and the rest of the entire social universe. We are not stupid and we can see so why have this fight which only affords someone to cry foul. Why?
    Who wins?
    My personal rights are not better than they used to be so why?


  22. It’s not “eliminating marriage”, Martin. If anything it would be “expanding marriage”. Take off your Liberal “reverse-glasses”. They make you see everything in “reverse”.


  23. The Lefties want to score a “win” in destroying the American culture, Carolyn. Lefties only care about “winning” at any cost.


  24. Why *aren’t* you using the slippery slope argument, Jack?

    ** Down in Oz, civil unions are a done deal, so now they’re discussing polyamory:

    ** In Switzerland, they’re talking about decriminalizing consensual incest–and, according to ABC, it’s already legal in China, France, Israel, the Ivory Coast, the Netherlands, Russia, Spain and Turkey:

    ** Here’s a bioethicist arguing for the legalization of prostitution and bestiality (actually the preferred term now is zoophilia) as well:

    So if we’re going to expand the definition of marriage from “one woman and one man” we need to very clearly define exactly what we’re going to expand it to. If we’re no longer going to exclude relationships between two people of the same sex, what relationships *are* we going to exclude?

    –If we want to exclude some sorts of relationships, on what basis are we going to do so?

    –If we don’t want to exclude any relationships, well, then maybe there was a slippery slope after all.


  25. I don’t know what difference it makes when it comes to marriage whether it is heterosexual or homosexual, even though my personal beliefs would obviously contradict my statement…but my personal beliefs are not the issue at hand. The rights for every human being is the issue. As far as I’m concerned, the contract two people agree to abide by is all that matters when it comes to our government and any benefits allowed which support it. Does it really matter about sexual orientation? Is it really the business of the government to make that decision in the process??? It’s a blasted contract, for heaven’s sake! We aren’t the ones to decide whether or not the marriage should be deemed legal. We ALL know how we feel regarding the matter and nobody can take that away from us.

    Since when has government or each and every one of us become God? And folks…why don’t you take a look at the divorce system with regards to hetero couples??? If you want to take a peek at wasted government time, why don’t you check out the costs incurred in each and every town in each and every state in our nation. If people cannot grasp the FACT that marriage is not something to be taken lightly, then they have no business wasting taxpayer dollars in divorce court and they CERTAINLY have no business getting married in the first place.

    Now before anybody tries to argue the point with me regarding the matter, I am dead serious on this and hear me out on what I’m trying to say. To get a job anywhere, prejudice is not allowed anywhere in our country and every business is on the line, setting themselves up for lawsuit…so why should there be prejudice in legalizing gay marriage? It’s their business what lifestyle they choose, not ours and certainly NOT the government’s. You think I’m going to waste my time and energies protesting a gay couple who has vowed the rest of their lives together…and one may have to come to that decision one day as their partner lays dying on a hospital bed? I know I’m not…and neither should our government.

    And everyone, nobody has to agree or disagree with me. I just felt compelled to say what I believe.


  26. It’s pretty simple, Goldie. “Marriage” has always been just between a man and a woman. It’s never been anything else. Why should the definition of “marriage” be opened up just to include only a tiny deviant minority of the population that wants to engage in queer behavior and exclude all of the other people that want to practice deviant things?

    If you really want to be “fair” about it, there have been many polygamous marriages in history, many marriages between cousins in history, and many, many marriages including some really young people in history. Why exclude those folks?

    If we’re going to open up the definition of “marriage” then we should be “fair” to everyone and allow anyone to marry anyone or anything they want. That’s only “fair”.

    I mean, we want to be “fair”, don’t we?


  27. Jack, care to elaborate just who made the original decision of just what a marriage is? I’m not speaking of US law…I’m speaking of way, way before that. My point is…it’s NOT the government’s business to say just what a marriage is. It’s a written contract for the government to control taxation…nothing more, nothing less! Of all people, I’m surprised you haven’t said anything with regards to that.

    To those who marry, it should be a bond between two PEOPLE who have the intent to live the rest of their days together, devoted to each other during good times or bad…the start of a longstanding relationship through better or worse, in sickness or health…well, you know what I mean.

    As far as I see it, Ol’ Governor Gregoire is posturing her authority, her attempts at control where it doesn’t belong.


  28. Sure Goldie, the “original decision” was made by Mother Nature herself. I should think that’s obvious.

    Goldie, it’s “discrimination” to limit marriage to just two people. Some people desire to live in large groups for comfort. I’m sure that they all love each other and are devoted to each other, too.

    The Rashneeshis were into “group love”. There are Polygamous families that are into “group love”. Why just two people?

    Gregoire is just doing what Democrats do, foisting their stupid Leftist agenda on everyone as long as they are in power regardless of whether the communities want the changes or not.

    Democrats don’t give a flying rat’s ass what the voters want, they only care about their agenda. That’s why you should never vote for a Democrat.


  29. Btw, i see an immediate initiative of the people to overturn any “law” permitting Gay “marriages”. You can bet on it.


  30. For any who didn’t see or hear it completely, Gregoire’s announcement is at

    That being said, she speaks endlessly about ending discrimination, how children should never feel their parents relationship is any less than another, all that matters is people loving each other, on and on and on. Yet, she and supporters of this bill include discrimination against others in the bill by denying polygamous marriage rights, first cousin, you name it.

    When R-71 was the big debate, if you recall it was all about protecting seniors to sell it, not so much informing people it was just a stepping stone to gay marriage. In fact, the pro-R-71 op ed written by Rory Bowman and published in the Sunday, October 11, 2009 Columbian specifically denied it had anything to do with gay marriage.

    What is not being asked, what will they want next? Does anybody actually think gay activist will stop once they get this pushed through and passed the people?

    And don’t forget, in their quest for “equality,” they do not want to give up their protected class status either.

    Jack, undoubtedly there will be a referendum initiative launched. But, don’t forget that all of the names, addresses and signatures of any who signed the petitions for R-71 were handed to over 30 gay activist groups so they may “contact” any they feel might sign another petition in order to “discuss” their views with them, thanks to current Attorney General and candidate for governor, Rob McKenna. I’m sure their will be intimidation against those more prominent people gays fear will sign another petition.

    Goldie, I believe to know just who decided what marriage would be, one must look back to the Bible where it is clearly laid out just who laid down what marriage is. So I agree, government should get their nose out of marriage and leave it where it began and where it belongs.

    Additionally, an interesting take from a top Italian historian on homosexuality in ancient Rome and his instant condemnation for his views;


  31. Once people start dragging mysticism into debate, I can no longer participate. I’ll risk my life to give you the right to believe in whatever supernatural gobbledygook you want, as long as it isn’t forced on others.

    Truthfully, does anybody here really believe that gay marriage won’t be universally accepted in 25 years? You can be angry yet still agree that that’s what’s going to happen.


  32. “I’ll risk my life to give you the right to believe in whatever supernatural gobbledygook you want, as long as it isn’t forced on others.”

    But Martin, that is exactly what is going on, ever so gradually. Gay activists are indoctrinating American youth with parents permission to be accepting of gays and the gay lifestyle.

    Gay marriage is but another incremental step towards homosexuality being made the preferred lifestyle and along with it, every other perversion.

    I have no doubt America will universally accept homosexuality within the next 25 years and not being noticed is that within a few years after that, there will be no American society, what with all of the agenda driven modifications being pushed on to us.

    What will heterosexuals be but breeders for homosexuals pleasure? Already there are claims, not very loud yet, that pedophiles are “born that way” and studies underway to determine it.

    Click to access nl_e17.pdf

    I’m sure too that you are aware NAMBLA lists themselves as a “civil rights” group?

    Now, where has all of this been heard before?


  33. Lew, I can identify with your arguments because I was raised in a cult (Mormonism), and I can remember how I feared a dire future. It kept me up at night, tainted my logic, and was oppressive in its inevitability. (No wonder depression attacks half of Americans.) I’m simply saying that even though I don’t agree with you, I can accommodate your thinking, and it has affected my own thoughts on the subject. I hope you can do the same.


  34. Nothing “mystic” about “fairness”, Martin. God doesn’t have a “lock” on it.

    I don’t believe “Gay Marriage” will be any more “accepted” in the future than it is today, because people will always give a “queer eye” to same-sex couples. It will always be: “oh! you’re one of “them””.

    People have looked upon queer behavior with disapproval since time began and government didn’t have anything to do with it. They sure as heck won’t stop doing so now or in the future because of any government “decree”.



  35. Martin, your first mistake is believing I am coming from a religious stand. I only mention the Bible as it has the oldest recorded record of marriage.

    I don’t argue my positions based upon the Bible as too many read and see something different in it.

    My position is wholly secular and I am still waiting on someone to tell me how ending discrimination with an EQUALITY in marriage that continues to discriminate is EQUAL.


  36. Lew, the legal argument for gay marriage is solid. The legal argument against it is primarily one of status quo. Though Jack is trying to outrage me with polygamy (remember, Mormon), it is common in much of the world, and will probably be accepted (again) in the U.S. sometime in the future – so he’s right on that account. Marriage with animals – no Constitutional grounds (animals have no civil rights). Marriage with children – what’s “underage” throws that into confusion, but 14-year olds can marry in some States. I trust the legal system to sort it all out – is that something only Liberals do?


  37. Why some day in the future for it to be acceptable, Martin? Why not now with the EQUALITY in Marriage? BTW, I know not all parts of Mormon practice polygamy.

    Why exclude any legal argumentfor two gay brothers marrying? Or, an elderly parent to their adult offspring? First cousins? Or, even multiple marriages?

    I’m not the one pushing for underage relations, deviants supporting the gay agenda are.

    But, if, as teh governor said today, it is only about allowing people the legal right to love each other and express that love in a marital relationship, why exclude all of these others?

    Watch the tape of her speech. I almost choked when she said words to the affect of how could she ever justify telling these people that a budget is more more important that they are to the legislature.

    That is the attitude that has us in this ongoing mess.


  38. Lew, most of your examples will probably be able to marry someday. The real question is, “why do you care?” The Constitution’s guarantee of “liberty” is eventually going to overcome religious and status quo arguments. Because I care how you and Jack (and others) feel on the issue, even though I have no objection to how other people live their lives, I’m satisfied with how the legal and democratic process handles it.


  39. I’m sorry Martin, but your “attempts” to dismiss my perfectly logical facts are pathetic. Again, if we’re going to open “marriage” to re-define it, then we should be perfectly “fair” and not limit the re-definition to just favor one tiny little group of people.

    Polygamists have much more of a “claim” to “marriage” since they are the traditional man/woman unions. Same as with marrying really young.

    Gays have never been considered for “marriage” because they don’t have opposing “equipment”. Being “Gay” has always been considered “Queer”, and is still considered so by most of the nation.

    Again, “fairness” and “equality” say we need to consider accomodating every “group” and not just “one” of them, or we should just forget the whole idea.

    People’s feelings about “gays” haven’t changed in thousands of years, and they certainly aren’t going to change in the next thousands of years. “Queer” will still be “Queer”.


  40. Martin, I guess I can put it right back in your lap by asking you, why do you care if this small segment is allowed to marry, but others of legal consenting age still can’t?

    I don’t really care how others live their lives or what they do in their bedroom. But, when it comes to forcing me to accept that lifestyle as “normal” while they still object to others also being “normal” doesn’t cut it.

    If it is really about EQUALITY, then make it equal.

    We have to many today who are considered more equal than others.


  41. Wow…guess I stirred the pot a bit, huh!

    Mother Nature??? Okay Jack, now it’s time for me to tease you a bit. Care to explain just who Mother Nature is and how she made that decision? I’d love to see your explanation. Myself, I agree with Lew that the teachings of the bible (Corinthians) explain the rules we are to follow, but not everybody follows the Holy Bible…and the Holy Bible is left to interpretation by the people of the world. Not all interpretations are alike.

    All I’m trying to say is this…

    “Is it right for our government to be making a decision regarding a legal document…a binding contract… in order for one group of people to receive government benefits such as SSI on your spouse, yet not for another just because of sexual orientation? And is it right for our governor to be making a public stance on something which I believe should remain in the private sector?”

    It’s not a matter of testing what we believe in, Jack…it’s a matter of HUMAN rights, whether we agree or not.


  42. Also Jack, I’m wondering just how much taxpayer dollars have been spent arguing this longstanding debate. I’m also wondering that if the issue hadn’t been brought to the forefront, would we have seen all the “Gay Rights” hullabaloo(Oh boy…now I’m really showing my age with using THAT word) over the years???


  43. Lew, not to put too fine a point on it, but what you choose to accept or not accept is entirely your concern. Gay people (or anyone else) don’t give a damn. (As it should be.)


  44. Goldie, if it’s really a question of “Human Rights,” why do all of the laws legalizing gay marriage still discriminate against other adults of legal age?

    Don’t others also have “Human Rights” to marry and receive equal benefits too?

    Why call it EQUALITY in Marriage when it is anything but? Why only open the door for one small group and not all of the other small groups?

    What right do gay activists have to say two gay brothers still won’t be allowed to marry? Or, first cousins that love each other? Or even Polygamists that desire such an arrangement?

    What possible harm would it do to someone elses marriage to legalize their forbidden relationships as well?

    Martin, I already know that. Gay activists have been proving for several years that that they don’t give a damn about anything but their own desires.


  45. I can see my point is not coming across too well, here. Lew, for those of us who believe in the words of the Holy Bible, we are taught not to judge others and that the decision maker with regards to whether or not something is considered socially acceptable is OUR maker. I was just watching Anderson Cooper this morning and in his final statement of the show, he said something to the effect of…”we’ve all got to stop being so judgmental of others and accept each others’ differences.” Pretty wise words by the man, I’d say.

    I don’t know about you, but I honestly believe our government has gotten too involved in our lives. Maybe that’s part of the Welfare State which has been designated by those whose ideals of the perfect government had every intention to control our every move…but that’s not the type of government I envision for our nation. Funny…not to go off subject or anything, but you should take a peek at the ridiculous laws each and every state in this nation has. Even here in Washington State. Did you know it is against the law if you are confirmed with a contagious, infectious disease or condition and you willfully go out in public to expose others, you could be detained and found guilty of a misdemeanor? That includes the flu. RCW 70.54.050

    In Billings Montana, it is against the law to raise pet rats. No joke. And to think our fearless leaders are hard at work, spending taxpayer dollars trying to decide whether or not gays should be able to marry. Maybe I’m incorrect in thinking the monies could be better spent elsewhere but I’m sticking to my beliefs.


    If you want to see more ridiculous laws…some which are obsolete but are still on the books, check out this link:


  46. It’s real simple, Goldie. Mother Nature made it so a man and a woman could create a family – Gays can’t. A family is a basic structure of commitment that replenishes the human race – again, something that Gays can’t do. So it’s real easy to see what Mother Nature intended for the human race. Mankind just followed Mother Nature’s “suit” at the dawn of time and has done so ever since.

    You must also remember: “it’s not nice to fool with Mother Nature”.

    I have to ask: What “longstanding” debate? Queers have never been considered “normal” and there has never really been much “debate” about that. America still overwhelmingly rejects “Gay Marriage”.


  47. Actually Martin, Gay people DO “give a damn”. that’s what all of the “fuss” is about. Let’s be honest and to the point here: the whole “drive” behind “Gay marriage” is to achieve nothing more than “A-C-C-E-P-T-A-N-C-E” and monetary benefits. Let’s quit playing “word-games” and dispense with the Bullsh*t about “love” and “equality”.

    Gays “think” that if they get a “marriage certificate” that it will somehow mean that Gays are “accepted as normal” – and that will never happen in any case.


  48. Lew, Gays discriminate against others as much as they are discriminated against. The only thing they care about is somehow getting that elusive “A-C-C-E-P-T-A-N-C-E”.


  49. Goldie, people make “judgements” every day, and they damned well should. “Judgements” are what guide us through life and keep us from ruin and harm.

    Anybody who says we “shouldn’t judge” is a naive FOOL.


  50. Goldie, I hear what you’re saying, and you’ve got a good point. But I do think the Bible makes a distinction between our private attitudes (“Judge not”) and the public actions of rulers (which, in a republic, is what we all are).

    When the Bible tells us not to judge, that’s dealing with an internal attitude of condemnation and rejection. Christians are commanded to love our neighbors, whether or not we like them, whether or not we agree with them, whether or not they’re LGBT or straight.

    But that doesn’t even faintly suggest that rulers are to accept and legalize any and all behavior. A Christian judge, e.g., is commanded to love the axe murderer, even as she sentences him to life plus 99 years.


  51. But the issue you raise has actually been a subject of serious debate in the Christian Church for a good long while now. The problem, for those of us who take the Bible seriously, is that, on the one hand, the New Testament clearly sets out a dual standard, if you will: Christians aren’t supposed to hold non-Christians to the same standards they hold themselves. St. Paul is quite clear on this in his letters.

    So, in more recent times, no less a conservative light than C. S. Lewis, in the liberalization-of-divorce debate in his generation, argued that Christians shouldn’t try to apply the biblical moral standard (no divorce except for adultery) to the society at large, only to themselves.

    On the other hand, once you start applying a different standard to the culture than to the Church, where do you stop? The Bible also says “Don’t commit murder.” And certainly not everyone agrees with that standard, just as not everyone agrees with the prohibition on divorce or on homosexual practice. So do we not try to impose *that* standard on people outside the Church either?

    It’s quite a knotty little problem.


  52. LOL, Carolyn…you’ve got good points I definitely cannot disagree with. Thanks.

    Jack, there’s a difference between the “Intent” of Mother Nature and the law brought forth from the beginning that you speak of. Take for instance, a married hetero couple…never able to bear children due to health concerns. So what’s the difference between that and a gay couple not having any children? Does a marriage mean instant children? Of course not. If you think a marriage is only for procreation, then maybe you need to open that doorway that leads you away from ignorance.


  53. Jack, are you aware that a private club can discriminate if it wants to? So, if you hate gays, don’t allow them in, and certainly don’t let them get married in your church. Call them names, make up stories, scare your kids – it’s all okay under the Freedom of Expression. Gays aren’t looking for acceptance in your private world – and visa versa.


  54. No there really isn’t and difference between the “intent” of Mother Nature and what mankind has taken away from that, Goldie. Procreation was the basic model mankind used for “marriage”.

    Mother nature also made it possible to have sex with a cucumber or a knothole in a fence, but mankind has never considered “marriage” to a cucumber or a fence board.


  55. Martin, it isn’t about “private clubs”, it’s about opening up the definition of “marriage” to include one tiny segment of the population that thinks it “needs” to be included in something that it has never been included in.

    What I’m saying is that if we open up the definition, then it should be done FAIRLY and include ALL of the “excluded” groups. We should not DISCRIMINATE here.

    That’s only FAIR, isn’t it?


  56. You know, it’s kind of humorous watching some of you people trying your damndest to get around “fairness” and “discrimination”.

    Facts bite you in the ass every time.


  57. Jack, “fair” isn’t defined in the legal system, and I never use the “fair” argument in a debate. I start at the Constitution, which leads to liberty, which prevents discrimination, which makes your opinion on how things ought to be irrelevant. If someone wants to make YOU gay, or make YOU accept gays, then I’ll certainly be on your side.


  58. That’s nice, Martin. I know that the legal system has no concept of what “fair” means because of the way that it runs. I’m quite sure that the population of America very well knows the definition of “fair” is though.


  59. Martin, why do we “discriminate” against Polygamists in marriage? Why do we “discriminate” against young people in marriage?


  60. Jack, I’ll answer your question as if it’s not purely rhetorical.

    The legal system has a prevailing set of rules, the Constitution, but every issue is not black or white – most issues conflict with each other at the edges – so we use judges to balance all the inputs. Public opinion, liberty, and pragmatic concerns are all part of the equation. Things balanced against gays until now but their time has come. Polygamy used to be allowed but now it’s not – but it may be again in the future…

    The most important thing a president can do is appoint judges that balance in their favor. Luckily, the vast majority of judges don’t give a rat’s ass about politics and simply follow the law, but unfortunately, there are biased judges on both sides.


  61. I seriously doubt that “Gays time has come”, Martin. They apparently think so, but America does not.


  62. Jack, I’d have to agree with your last statement at 2:42 pm. Heck, with people who display outrage and are so judgmental, even throwing in nasty comments which have absolutely nothing to do with the discussion but love the shock factor, then postulating their (vision of )superiority with such diatribe, I can fully understand why prejudice continues in our society.

    Thanks for your…ahem…enlightenment, Jack. I’m sure Lew appreciates the degradation of his web blog.


  63. Like I said Goldie, everybody makes “judgements” every day. It’s something we all do. I think the only “outrage” is having to put up with this whining and crap that America doesn’t want.

    The whole thing has absolutely nothing to do with “equality” and “fairness” anyway. It’s all about forcing America to “accept” Gays as “normal” and that isn’t going to happen.

    Lew is a big boy, Goldie. If he doesn’t like what I say or feels it “degrades” his blog I’m sure he’ll say so. I’m sorry that you can’t get around my simple facts but the facts remain anyway.


  64. Well Jack, I think if attention hadn’t been brought to the subject matter in the public eye in the first place, it wouldn’t be such a subject of “whining and crap.” And Jack, one man’s fact isn’t necessarily true. It’s all in the interpretation of the fact.

    Oh, and thanks for your apology (yes, I’m teasing).


  65. Gays have been whining for many, many years, Goldie. And today more than ever they’re very much “in-your-face” trying to get accepted as “normal”, as though whining and throwing tantrums ever got anyone to change their minds.

    Society may “tolerate” Gays and their “behaviors”, but I seriously doubt most Americans will ever consider being Gay as “normal”.


  66. “but America does not”

    Jack, you don’t speak for me, nor for “America”. As it now appears, roughly 51% of Americans in several polls accept the concept of gay marriage, and it is increasing with each poll.

    So, have your own opinion, but don’t have any false conception that you speak for “America”, because you don’t.

    It is truly a shame that you cannot accept people for who they are, but there will always be people like you, unfortunately, that fear something different from themselves.

    What a sad, sad existence.


  67. Oh Jack, Jack, Jack. You say Gays have been whining for many years. That my dear sir is a generality by you which leaves the door open to a lot of interpretation. Just as Gays have been whining, so have heteros. Heck, for that matter, nature has been whining and screaming but unfortunately, it’s over deaf ears as our planet’s natural resources are becoming more scarce at a rate that doesn’t support sustainability, and the overcrowding continues. People see and hear what they want to see and hear. Nobody says you have to change your beliefs. It’s your God given right to stand up for what you believe in as I do the same. All I’ve been trying to say is that there’s a lot more to concern ourselves with right now, rather than fighting over whether or not gays have a right to marry and it’s time our governing officials stop wasting taxpayer dollars for something they have no business contesting.

    I’d rather our government concern themselves with reducing their constant increasing greed and the need to deplete the hard-earned paychecks of hardworking citizens of our nation. They NEED TO GET THEIR ACT TOGETHER and work for the common good rather than their own need for financial self fulfillment.


  68. Greg, I have no doubt polls show such strong support. Then again, we also know how polls can easily be manipulated.

    You have to wonder, though, even as Gregoire claimed strong public support for it, why then not put it to a vote of the public?

    Not one state that legalized gay marriage did so by a public vote.

    Isn’t sort of odd considering there is such strong public support, allegedly?

    Most people accept gays today and the criminalization and abhorrence seen years ago is largely non-existent today.

    But that isn’t enough, is it?

    They have equal rights, but even that isn’t enough as they want to remain a protected status class.

    But let me ask, what will the next step in their quest for “equality” be? You don’t seriously believe it stops here, do you?


  69. “Not one state that legalized gay marriage did so by a public vote.”

    Because, Lew, basic human rights don’t require a vote.


  70. Sort of a hollow argument, Owen, considering ya’ll are fighting for a legislative vote.

    But, since “basic human rights don’t require a vote,” why will this vote continue to deny basic human rights to polygamists, first cousins, siblings (even of the same sex) and so many others?

    Do they not have “basic human rights” too?


  71. Why should any of this be a decision by public vote or by government?


  72. I agree Goldie, but the fact remains that it is.

    I have not seen anyone propose any legislation to remove government from marriage.

    So, we are stuck with what we have.


  73. It is obvious that you still maintain that homosexuality is a choice, as you are comparing lifestyle choices to homosexuality in your post. If you maintain that position, then there is no changing your mind, lacking your adherence to scientific progress. However, the position that homosexuality is genetic puts it at odds with your other lifestyle choices, and makes your argument moot.


  74. Goldie:

    IF the contract was EXACTLY the same for all involved (which is the legal part of marriage, administered by the state), then fine. There are several legal protections afforded marriage that are not afforded in the current domestic partnership contract. These are important for estate, family, and health administration, which are also overseen by the state. It is necessary and important for these legal issues to be addressed in some fashion, and it is currently done through legal marriage, licensed by the state.

    Now, if the two were separated, the legal contract administered by the state and called whatever you want to call it, that affords all the rights and privileges of the current legal marriage contract, and the marriage ceremonry presided over by the church (or whatever organization) that has no legal bearing, that would be the best option, in my opinion.


  75. Maybe it hasn’t been proposed because the people who oppose such government intervention in their private lives are not out to waste their time or the money it would take to get from the signature process to law. Maybe that’s part of the reason that so many people have taken the path to common law marriage and live the rest of their natural days with their loved one WITHOUT a piece of paper denoting what they already know to be fact. If I’m not mistaken Lew, marriage through way of certificate signed at a courthouse started disappearing in the 60’s…part of the anti-government revolution. You also notice how the divorce rate started jumping right around the 70’s??? Makes ya think a bit as to why, huh!


  76. Greg, I’m aware of that. My point is this. The government, in order to gain tax revenues from the working class, determines just who pays what. Government control mandating our fair share in taxes. You think they give a rats rear end whether or not it is gay or hetero??? You really think Gov. Gregoire cares about the rights of gays in this matter? They’re out for the revenue and the only reason why they haven’t approved it thus far isn’t because of religious or personal beliefs. It’s because of the fact that once the one who makes the most wages is able to take on SSI/Medicare, that puts their domestic partner in line for bennies once they’ve passed. Heck, it’s already obvious the government wants to cut back SSI/Medicare bennies…and what a better place to get started but against the Gay Rights. THEN we’re talking about domestic partnerships and the health insurance industry. Tell me if I’m wrong that I believe insurance companies are out to find whatever they can to prevent coverage on just about anything they can…or to make the rates so incredibly expensive, nobody in the middle class could afford it even if any executive orders have been signed to prevent such a move.

    It’s all in the money, Greg.

    As far as I’m concerned, if the couple has professed their partnership, they live in the same residence and continue to do so for many years to come…then they are legally bound. Why should there be rules to the contrary?


  77. Where have I said it is a choice, Greg? My point, besides the legislature wasting time on this matter instead of dealing with the $1.5 Billion budget gap we still face, is that others who may wish to also marry are still to be discriminated against.

    If the true intent is to make marriage EQUAL, shouldn’t it be EQUAL for all, not just some?

    As for homosexuality being genetic, can you show me where the so called “gay gene” has ever been replicated?

    Click to access bornorbred.pdf

    Just because someone makes a claim that you want to be true, doesn’t make it true. Even the APA (American Psychosocial Association) in promoting their acceptance of gay lifestyles and urging others to admits, “There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors.”


  78. Goldie:

    Yes, money is an issue. But there is so much more; children, property, rights of visitation at healthcare facilities, end of life decisions, etc. Unfortunately, there is no “common law domestic partnership”, so the same problems exist.

    Lew, I can quote just as many studies and articles as you can that show genetic origin, and then we would just be going back and forth. That is why I made the statement that I made. If you don’t subscribe to the genetic origin of homosexuality, there is no changing your mind. If you do, then your argument doesn’t hold up. That’s all I’m saying.

    It’s kind of the same with abortion. If you don’t believe that real life begins at conception, then the pro-life argument holds no value. (Please, I’m not starting an abortion argument, just using it as an example). If you believe that homosexuality is genetic, then it is truly a basic human rights issue. If you don’t, not so much.


  79. Gee Greg Owens, you sure take off on a “tangent”. You ASSume an awful lot of “things” in your “quest” to shoot down what I’ve said, but you are so far off-base that it isn’t funny.

    You don’t even “speak for yourself”, Dude. America has overwhelmingly rejected “Gay Marriage” time and time again. Care to dispute that?

    You ASSume that I “cannot accept people for who they are” without even knowing your ass from a hole in the ground. Care to provide some PROOF of your asinine statement?

    You Leftist trolls are sure some sad, sick bastards.


  80. There is NO “basic right” for Gays to get “married”, Greg. NONE. “Marriage in our society is only between a man and a woman and it has always been that way. Period.


  81. I’m sorry Greg, please provide some PROOF that Homosexuality is “Genetic”. there has never been anything found to back up that preposterous notion. There is no “Gay Gene”.


  82. While you’re at it Greg, Please tell us WHY it’s “Ok” to discriminate against people who practice Polygamy, young people that want to get married, and relatives that wish to be married?

    Since “marriage” as defined in America today is strictly man/woman, wouldn’t you say that Polygamists, young people, and related people have MORE of a “right” to “marriage” than Gays because they are man/woman relationships and Gay relationships aren’t?

    WHY is it not “fair” to consider those people in a “new definition” of “marriage”?


  83. Greg, first you say, “If you maintain that position, then there is no changing your mind, lacking your adherence to scientific progress.”

    Yet, when I show you that there is no settled science on it being genetic, your blinders pop up and you begin talking about not going back and forth.

    Basic human rights are just that. Genetics has no bearing on basic human rights.

    So again I ask, if gay marriage is a basic human right, why isn’t that basic human right extended to other humans of legal age who will continue to be denied that basic human right in this EQUALITY in Marriage bill?


  84. Just for “snits & giggle”, let us confront the question: “Is Homosexuality a choice?”

    First off, “Sexual Operation” of a human being is determined by “equipment”. The “equipment” you have determines your sexual “role”. With the exception of a rare “mistake” on the part of Mother Nature, we all have one “set” or the other.

    In order to have the Mother Nature-intended sex, Part “A” goes to part “B”. You see, Mother Nature intended for the species to reproduce itself, and that is the original purpose for sex.

    Many parts of the body can be used for “other things”. Eyeballs make excellent flying projectiles whilst playing “squash”. Feet can be used for breaking KungFu bricks. Noses can be great “receivers” for things like Cocaine. Butts can be “areas of punishment”. And so on.

    But the “main point” is that all of us were born with Heterosexual “equipment”. Whether we choose to use that “equipment” the way it was intended or not is a “choice”. But biologically speaking, we all have “original equipment”.

    Believe it or else, there are some people who do not wish to use their “original equipment” as it was intended, and some who do not wish to use it at all. But any other than Mother Nature’s intended use is obviously “Abnormal”.

    It’s just that simple. Period.


  85. C’mon Greg. Show us that you’re not just another smart-assed Leftist troll with no “man-equipment”. We discuss things and get to the bottom of them here.


  86. Jack, Jack, Jack. Such a sad, sad, existence. I really do feel sorry for you. Left behind without enjoying all the colors that life has to offer. Enjoy your loneliness.

    Lew, again, you think homosexuality is a choice. As long as you decide against the progression of science, there is no changing your mind.

    I choose to embrace life and all that it has to offer. You, and Jack, choose not to. Fine with me. History shows that human rights win out, and bigotry and hate lose.

    Jack, speaking of assumptions, you have no idea what my political leanings are. Respect for all people and acknowledgement of basic human rights cross all political parties. I really do feel sorry for you. So much of life you are tossing aside with your bigotry and hatred.


  87. Sorry Greg, but as i have shown you, there is no “progression of science.” Only hopeful wishing unsupported by science.

    If there were such a thing as a “gay gene,” geneticists would have been able to replicate it by now.

    And again, if your view and goal is for basic human rights to win out, why do you and other supporters of gay marriage continue to support discrimination against many others?

    I’m still waiting to hear what the next step is after they win this. Surely you are naive enough to believe this would end their quest for whatever their eventual goal is.


  88. Greg, it’s easy to tell what your “political leanings” are – Liberals run on “feelings” and think those “feelings” outweigh facts. I deal in facts and reality. You apparently don’t.

    Liberals also think that they’re somehow “better” than anyone else because they think that they “care more” than anyone else.

    I don’t think that way. I figure that I’m just one guy and that my opinions only count as “one”. But reality is reality and facts are facts, so if you want to take me on you had better damned well get your facts in a row or I’ll run over you like a bulldozer. I don’t have a “need” to pull panties over my head and run off and cry somewhere.


  89. Greg? Are you there? Or did you “wussie back” to The Columbian where a bunch of crybaby Liberal bastards who don’t have the “man-equipment” to allow any real discussion censor the comments in their favor?


  90. Keep making ASSumptions Jack. That is obviously how you make decisions and come to conclusions. Run me over like a bulldozer. Hah. Didn’t know hillbillies knew how to run machinery. And it’s nice that you want to put everyone into nice, neat little boxes. Doesn’t work for most people, including me.

    Nice unbiased sources, there, Lew. Salt Lake Tribune (Mormon) and CWFA (Christian). Yep. Those sources would definitely present both sides equitably. NOT.

    You two crack me up. Keep up the good work.


  91. Greg, do you mean both sides like LGBT does? Or the Democrat Party and the New York Times?

    Then again, I give a shit if you don’t like the sources used.

    And yes, the Liberal Slate is so unbiased, BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

    You crack me up crying about biased sources and fall back on sources biased to your liking.


  92. Tell me Greg, do you buy into the “studies” and efforts at desensitizing society to pedophiles ongoing now, just as was done with gays a few years ago?

    Take a peek back in my archives from when Alycia Nipp was murdered (in my neighborhood, by the way) and the comments attacking me for calling for stronger prosecutions of Level III sex offenders


  93. Just throwing a little back atcha, Lew. You threw conservative sources at me, so to prove my point, I threw a liberal source at you, just showing you it can go both ways. I see my irony was lost on you….

    As I wrote before, we can go back and forth throwing articles from both sides of the issue at each other and get nowhere. It all falls back on basic human rights, similar to those of the abortion issue. If you follow that life begins at conception, then you believe that no vote should take away the right to life. If you follow that homosexuality is genetic, then you believe that no vote should take away their basic human rights.

    Liberal as the source is that I listed, it does report an interesting theory; that the genetic origin is not a specific gene, but rather the code that creates male attraction. This from Dr. Mathews at Northwestern University. He goes into more depth in his literature actually published from the university itself.


  94. Replying your new post…

    Huge difference between adults in consenting relationships and pedophiles killing kids, Lew. In fact, there is nothing similar about them. Kudos to you for pushing for more harsh penalties. But don’t compare the two; they are not the same, nor in any way similar.


  95. Uh, Greg, what you miss is that they were justifying the acts.

    I was the one condemning the killing of children. They were calling for less stringent penalties, if any at all on sex offenders who don’t kill, just molest.

    Part & parcel of the question you deflected, do you also support studies aimed at lessening the public view of pedophiles as studies did early in the move to desensitize the public to homosexuality?


  96. Sorry Greg, but you are in a “box” of your own making. For some reason that “box” has a lot of “discrimination” in it that you don’t seem to want to deal with.

    Please tell us why Gregoire’s proposal would still discriminate against two Gay brothers being married, or Gays marrying multiple partners? Where is the “equality” and “non-discrimination”??

    Btw Greg, you still haven’t shown us where that “Gay Gene” is supposed to be. Did you lose it in the washing machine? Did your dog eat it?


  97. “do you also support studies aimed at lessening the public view of pedophiles as studies did early in the move to desensitize the public to homosexuality?”

    No. Harming children is never acceptable. Period. And this should never be compared to consenting adults in consensual relationships.

    And, the public shouldn’t have to be “desensitized” to homosexuality, any more than they should have to be desensitized to a person of color, or a woman voting. Basic human rights should just “be”.


  98. The public overwhelmingly looks upon Homosexuality as “deviant” and “abnormal”, Greg. America overwhelmingly rejects “Gay Marriage” because it isn’t “normal”. The human culture frowns upon a lot of things that they consider to be “deviant” or “not normal”.

    So you’re saying that we should all just “get used to it”? The question is: “why should we just get used to it”?


  99. Lew, I keep answering your question, and you keep repeating the same unintelligent fallacy. Homosexuality is a not a choice. Your list of other lifestyles is.

    The vast majority of opposition to the genetic origin to homosexuality, Lew, is religious in nature. In fact, the vast majority of opposition to scientific progress in general is religious in nature. Science is moving toward answers; it doesn’t formulate answers and then look for a proofs.

    At one time, Lew, epileptic seizures were once considered demonic possessions. Should we remain on that level, Lew?


  100. No Greg, we’re all born with heterosexual “equipment”. That’s all the “proof” you need.

    Find that “Gay Gene”, Greg. Maybe you lost it in the sofa cushions.


  101. Btw Greg, I’ll still be here when your panties come out of the dryer.


  102. “The public overwhelmingly looks upon Homosexuality as “deviant” and “abnormal”, Greg. America overwhelmingly rejects “Gay Marriage” because it isn’t “normal”

    Again, Jack, you don’t speak for the “public”, nor for “America”.

    Again, roughly 51% (and growing) of America supports gay marriage. The most recent poll in Washington State is 55%.

    Society learns as it matures, Jack. We don’t burn witches at the stake anymore. The world is round. People of color aren’t inferior. Epileptic seizures are not demon possessions. Women are capable of casting their own votes.

    What, exactly, Jack, are you afraid of?


  103. And I’ll still be here when you’re done brushing your tooth, Jack.


  104. I don’t have to “speak for America”, Greg. America has spoken on the subject many, many times. Don’t you read a lot?

    One thing you learn about “polls”, is that they’re pretty much meaningless, Greg. The only “polls” that count are the elections, and “Gay Marriage” has been beaten so many times that it isn’t funny.

    One thing society has “learned” Greg, is that the little anarchist “no rules!” bastards of the 60’s grew up and created an “establishment” far worse than anything they faced back then, and and they’re still trying to destroy this nation to this day. America doesn’t buy their BS any more today than it did back then.

    Society doesn’t need to “learn” to put up with deviant behavior, Greg. We have far too many little pukes “doing their own thing” now.


  105. I’m so glad yuour panties finally came out of the dryer, Greg. Do try not to wet them again.


  106. “Society doesn’t need to “learn” to put up with deviant behavior, Greg. We have far too many little pukes “doing their own thing” now.”

    Wow. A KKK quote right out of the 50’s about mixed marriages. Nicely done.


  107. Oh, you should probably go ahead and pull that last tooth, there Jack….gold is at an all-time high now.


  108. Sorry that you’re still stuck back in the 60’s Greg. Have you taken a bath lately?


  109. Btw Greg, didja ever find that elusive “Gay Gene”? Maybe it’s in your pocket…


  110. Greg, you aren’t serious, are you? Saying Homosexuality isn’t a choice and then comparing it to an incurable disease while saying how “normal” it is?

    If something isn’t a choice, then it is something they cannot control.

    If you would read the links I give, you would see that the step is to desensitize pedophilia by first claiming harm to children is overstated, Pedophiles too are “born that way” and depriving children of sexual awareness from older people is harmful to their development.

    Garbage to us, yes. But, homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle was garbage not all that long ago too.

    Did you know that some gay activist groups embraced pedophiles until just a few years ago?,_Gay,_Bisexual,_Trans_and_Intersex_Association#Controversy_and_loss_of_UN_consultative_status


  111. “Did you know that some gay activist groups embraced pedophiles until just a few years ago?”

    Did you know that some people that call themselves Christians protested at military funerals, and continue to do so?

    Really, Lew? Seriously? C’mon. You’re more intelligent than to make arguments like comparing pedophilia to homosexuality. Are you aware that the vast majority of pedophiles are heterosexual?


  112. “Sorry that you’re still stuck back in the 60′s Greg. Have you taken a bath lately?”

    This is your bulldozer? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. You crack me up. Does your mother know what you do in her basement at night?


  113. Greg, there is a difference calling yourself something and actually being something.

    If you had bothered to read, Greg, I said they SUPPORTED pedophiles, not that they were pedophiles.

    I know you’re smarter than that, so I am left to believe you deliberately twist words to win an argument under false pretenses.


  114. Greg has nothing “else”, Lew. He obviously is ill-equipped to win any argument and he sure hasn’t done so here.

    We’re still waiting for you to find that elusive “Gay Gene”, Greg. We’re also still waiting for you to tell us why it’s “justified” to discriminate against anyone whilst pushing for “equality” in “marriage”. How does that one “work”?

    Btw, your “argumentative smartass” routine just makes you look like a fool, Greg. How about addressing the points I’ve raised or admitting that you “just can’t”?


  115. When you have an intelligent point to address, Jack, I’ll attend to it. Lew and I differ on many areas, similar in many areas, but he has my respect. You, not so much.


  116. I know you can’t refute what I’ve posted, Greg. I think that’s obvious to everybody else, too. You’ll just have to face the fact that you’re a failure as an “argumentative Liberal smartass” and perhaps think about going back to school or taking up some other “hobby”.



Leave a Reply. Comments are moderated. Spam & off topic comments will not be approved at Blog Author's discretion. THIS IS NOT A FREE SPEECH ZONE!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: