North Carolina Bans Homosexual Marriage While California Seeks to Ban Homosexual Therapy

by lewwaters

Considering that as of yet, not one single state that has approved homosexual marriage has done so by a public vote, the State of North Carolina joined in with 30 other states across the land in approving, by a vote of citizens a constitutional amendment to their state constitution banning homosexual marriage.

Even though much better funded, opponents to North Carolina’s ‘Amendment 1’ lost their bid to defeat the ban on homosexual marriage by a large margin, 61% to 39%. North Carolinians turned out in droves in support of banning homosexual marriage in their state with a constitutional amendment that would stop any activist judges from declaring the legislated ban “unconstitutional” should any homosexual group challenge the previous ban in courts.

Sure to anger Progressives who are intent on undoing the long held traditions of the United States, much credit for the defeat is being given to the Churches in North Carolina who supported the constitutional amendment banning homosexual marriage.

Voters ignored opposition from former President Bill Clinton and his former chief of staff Erskine Bowles as the launched record telephone messages urging voters to oppose the amendment. Even a statement from Obama opposing the amendment failed to dissuade voters from approving what they know is right, marriage is and was intended to be between one man and one woman.

Opponents ran “television ads that focused on weakened domestic violence protections for unmarried couples, and loss of health insurance for children of same-sex couples,” in the normal hyperbole often seen by supporters intent on undoing our long held traditions and in some areas, legal definition of marriage. Claiming an “unprecedented coalition,” and “appearing on television as much as they wanted,” their hype failed to convince North Carolinians of any need to redefine marriage to include homosexuals marrying each other.

After acknowledging the strong support of Churches, the Rev. Mark Harris, president of the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina said, “The string of national amendment victories supports arguments for amending the U.S. Constitution to allow only heterosexual marriages.”

Over half of the states now have similar bans now denying homosexuals marrying someone of the same sex.

Meanwhile, California, who previously saw their activist court legalization of homosexual marriage overturned by a vote of 52% to 48% in Proposition 8 that added a constitutional amendment stating that that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California,” only to see some of those same activist judges now ruling that their constitutional amendment is itself unconstitutional, are seeing their legislature seeking to ban gay teen ‘conversion’ therapy.

Supporters of the religiously based psychotherapy claim such a ban “would interfere with parents’ rights to seek appropriate psychological care for their children,” and such a ban “would prevent people from recovering from trauma of sexual abuse.”

“Any counselor worth his salt knows that homosexual feelings commonly occur in boys as a result of abuses,” said Marriage and Family Therapist David Pickup. “I should know because I was one of those boys.”

Democrat Sen. Ted Lieu, author of the bill to ban the therapy called the therapy “dangerous” adding “treatments can cause extreme depression and guilt that sometimes leads to suicide.”

“The bill would prohibit so-called reparative therapy for minors and obligate adults seeking the treatment to sign a release form that states that the counseling is ineffectual and possibly dangerous.”

I also see it as a move that would deny those who may question whether they truly are homosexual or not from receiving the completely voluntary therapy.

In spite of claims by homosexuals that the therapy is “ineffective,” interest has grown in recent years as referral networks have grown to over 260, up from only 100 a decade ago, claims Exodus International the world’s largest referral group who’s stated mission is, “Mobilizing the body of Christ to minister grace and truth to a world impacted by homosexuality.”

The American Psychological Association, who once offered similar therapy to homosexuals, now discourages therapists from referring homosexuals to seek “conversion therapy,” citing “research suggesting that efforts to produce the change could lead to depression and suicidal tendencies, and that no solid evidence exists that such change is possible.”

That numerous individuals claim to have come out of the homosexual lifestyle seems not to be considered evidence, even to the point that in some areas efforts to block & censor their message is seen.

From where I sit, I have to wonder why, if the therapy is “ineffective” would there be a need to legislatively ban it?

The APA, as is usual when no solid evidence is available only makes the claim that in their opinion it “could” lead to depression and suicidal tendencies, not that it does.

Other counselors making claims of homosexuality “could” lead to similar psychological problems are scoffed at.

But to me, as ineffective as they claim the therapy is, it obviously is much more effective than admitted and the real danger lies in if the public sees that homosexuality can be converted with such therapy, it blows the claim of “born that way” clean out of the water.

The therapy is not mandated or required, it is strictly voluntary as it should remain.

Banning it, though, denies people who may be troubled with their homosexuality treatment to make any change they desire to.

On the other hand, no one seeks to deny troubled teens who question their sexuality from being treated to confirm and make them comfortable in realizing they are indeed homosexual.

47 Comments to “North Carolina Bans Homosexual Marriage While California Seeks to Ban Homosexual Therapy”

  1. YES! Now let’s get it on the ballot in our state!!! Less than a month to go before the June 6th deadline for signatures to go to the Secretary of State….let’s get busy folks! The small in numbers “other side” is committed to their idea of what is right for your children and grandchildren…..are you?????


  2. This has been an ongoing debate for three decades at this point as least as far as I am aware. It is high time our nation recognizes the rights of the masses on this issue far outweigh the rights of the few.


  3. Carolyn:
    “All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.”
    Thomas Jefferson


  4. Greg, “Whosoever shall be guilty of Rape, Polygamy, or Sodomy with man or woman shall be punished, if a man, by castration, if a woman, by cutting thro’ the cartilage of her nose a hole of one half inch diameter at the least.” – Thomas Jefferson


  5. Sorry Greg, 35 year-old memories are not as up to date as

    That it didn’t work for him could be due to his frame of mind, meaning he may not have wanted to change.

    However, just because he claims that is how it was 35 years ago, does that mean others who seek a change should be denied it?

    You seem to have ignored, once again, that the therapy is V-O-L-U-N-T-A-R-Y


  6. Lew, we’ve been over this…at the time of the quote you list, the legislature wanted to keep the penalty for homosexuality as death. Jefferson proposed this, a compromise. He lost. The legislature continued to keep the penalty for homosexuality as death.

    When you use a quote, you should always understand the context in which it was written or said. Otherwise, it is used inappropriately as you just did.

    It is the same with Bible quotes. Those that use them for ill will fail to understand the true meaning and the actual translation issues with the scripture they are using to hate people.

    A little understanding goes a long way.


  7. “That it didn’t work for him could be due to his frame of mind, meaning he may not have wanted to change.”

    Did you even read the article? It was all he wanted to do.


  8. So he says 35 years later as he comes out against it.


  9. Whether it passed or not is irrelevant, Greg. He proposed it.

    It also shows that your quote trying to relate his words to approve of homosexual marriage don’t fit.

    That you and others now seek to classify homosexuals as a racial minority is laughable.

    That you all claim E-Q-U-A-L-T-Y in marriage while denying others who are in a minority that same privilege is even more comical as well as revealing.

    And, all of the bellyaching, whining or quoting will not change the fact that North Carolina overwhelmingly rejected legalizing homosexual marriage just as every other state where voters have had the chance to do so far.

    As far as you claim of “minority rights,” you show your hypocrisy there every time to complain about the GOP or conservatives.


  10. Marriage between one man and one woman is applied equally to everyone. Homosexuals are not seeking equal rights. They are seeking to redefine what marriage is.


  11. “Whether it passed or not is irrelevant, Greg. He proposed it.”

    In response to a more severe penalty, death, for sodomy.

    “It also shows that your quote trying to relate his words to approve of homosexual marriage don’t fit.”

    It was not intended to show approval for homosexual marriage. It was intended to refute Carolyn’s statement about the “rights of the masses”, the very reason we live in a representative republic and have three separate and distinct branches of government; so that the rights of the minority are not trampled on by the votes of the majority.

    “That you and others now seek to classify homosexuals as a racial minority is laughable.”

    Nobody is claiming homosexuals to be a racial minority. They are a minority by way of sexual orientation.

    “That you all claim E-Q-U-A-L-T-Y in marriage while denying others who are in a minority that same privilege is even more comical as well as revealing.”

    Lew, again? Really?

    “And, all of the bellyaching, whining or quoting will not change the fact that North Carolina overwhelmingly rejected legalizing homosexual marriage just as every other state where voters have had the chance to do so far.”

    For now. Did you know that women can vote now?

    “As far as you claim of “minority rights,” you show your hypocrisy there every time to complain about the GOP or conservatives.”

    First, I don’t complain about the GOP and conservatives. It is the Clark County GOP leadership and EXTREME conservatives like you and Kelly. Second, there is no minority status by association.

    It is unfortunate that people choose to show hatred and discrimination against homosexuals. However, it will take a while, but, eventually, society will continue to mature and this will be a small segment of society.


  12. Once again, Greg, you argue in circles, just like a dog chasing their tail.

    The effort to claim Jefferson proposed a little more lenient punishment for Gays than death as his approval is laughable at best and grasping at straws. Not one of our founders has been shown to support homosexuality, some vehemently opposed to it.

    Your silly argument of gays are a minority by sexual orientation also falls flat as you do not apply it evenly across the board. Others of different sexual orientation are still to be denied the privilege to marry, such a denial fully supported by pro-homosexual marriage factions.

    Women getting the vote is also irrelevant as gays have never been denied the vote.

    Strange that such a strong supporter as you of minority rights refuses to grant the minority party their rights. If sexual orientation grants one minority status, in your opinion, why doesn’t political orientation also grant the minority their equal rights?

    And, just as Dem2GOP stated, homosexuals have always been entitled to marriage under the exact same restriction the rest of us have, to one member of the opposite sex.

    They always have had the equal right to marry. What they wish now is a special right granted to them while denying it to others.


  13. Homosexuality is a form of mental illness. There is no other explanation for it. Period.


  14. Who is hating or discriminating against a homosexual here. Not me. I just do not feel that sexual preference should be allowed in the work place at all. That was settled years ago with the sexual harrassment legislation. We are not to discuss it so why is it okay now for the homosexuals to demand a priority in employment and all other forms of venue? Don’t ask don’t tell was legal for us in the private sector and should be back in the military. I also do not believe that a homosexual should have rights that trump mine. Marriage is a term define in religous and cultural sense from many centuries of mankind and why should that have to change? My culture and my lifestyle should not have to be altered to accomodate a few. The challenge here is to protect the rights of the many while also protecting the rights of the individual NOT to provide for specialty minority classifications and protections thus tilting the balance of the culture toward a certain sect or group of people.


  15. Well Jack, I might disagree with you on that. Though I am not of that persuasive argument, I do not believe it is a form of mental illness. Though I won’t get into the above tit-for-tat arguing that Greg and Lew were into, I do personally believe in letting people be whom they are, whatever they do in the bedroom, as long as they are not hurting someone else. I care less about gender identification, below-the-belt politics and so many other similar slights…
    What bothers me about what is going with the above subject, is that I feel personally that one group is trying to force their lifestyle or what they perceive as permissive life affirming activity on to others. And not everyone agrees with that. And should everyone around them be just like them, accept them for whom they are or ???.
    I want to spend LESS time babysitting people minor grudges and politicking and get down to the REAL issues that our community faces. And this may be one of the smaller issues…..


  16. “Homosexuality” is people being unhappy with what they really are. There is no other explanation for Homosexuality other than it being a form of mental “illness”. It is not hereditary nor is it genetic. But I agree that Homosexuality is a “minor issue” because such a small percentage of the population has Homosexual “tendencies”. The only part that makes this a “real issue” is that a bunch of anarchist-types are trying to corrupt our laws and destroy the American culture and traditions with deviant Bullsheet.

    We don’t need to sit by and let that happen.


  17. @Carolyn:

    A couple of issues for you to think about:

    1. Protections are necessary not because one’s sex life should be brought into the workplace, but because it shouldn’t. One should be able to live their life without being threatend with their livelihood or having a place to live. A homosexual should be able to introduce their partner and bring them to their workplace or company functions without fear of reprisal, the same as any heterosexual couple.

    2. “Marriage is a term define in religous and cultural sense from many centuries of mankind and why should that have to change?” The issue here isn’t religious nor cultural. Marriage, as administered by the state, is a contract. One may have a religious ceremony, but it isn’t legalized until such time that the contract is signed. However, it is entirely possible to sign the contract with only witnesses present and it is legal right then. See the difference? The question, then, is, who has a right to enter into that contract? There are legal definitions of what that contract is and who may enter into it. The term “marriage” is universally recognized, and there are benefits assigned to it currently that are not available to domestic partnerships, even at the current level in Washington State. I would not be against separation of religious marriage and civil unions as long as it was the same for both homosexuals and heterosexuals and everyone had the exact same rights that were universally recognized. Currently, this is not the case.

    Jack, please feel free to share your education and experience in Psychology; at which school did you earn your degree and where did you experience your practicum? And, of course, you must have a degree in biology as well…or maybe genetics? Please, do tell.


  18. Of note, Greg, even you refer to it as “partner” and not “Spouse.”

    Many of us were supported of civil unions to create fairness, but it was the homosexuals who came out against civil unions favoring full marriage, after it was homosexuals who pushed for civil unions.

    No one stops any homosexual from introducing their “partner” as such. But having a partner isn’t good enough, they wish to introduce a “spouse” claiming equal rights.

    They have been fooling people for decades as they push towards forced acceptance in incremental steps. They have desensitized many in the public to their deviancy and built the canard of an “alternate lifestyle” while denying their true nature.

    It matters not one little bit to me if someone is homosexual, I have no problem with what they wish to be or remain being, until it comes to forcing it off on me or my family.

    It is far different than being born to Black parents and it is a choice, plain and simple.

    Heterosexuals and homosexual alike have the capacity to be sexually active or not, that is the choice.

    To say they have no choice places them in the position of having uncontrollable sexual urges, the very stance many of you say is not true.

    Make no mistake, it is not about fairness or equality, they already had that under previous marriage laws. It is about special rights to force society to accept them and their deviancy as normal.

    BTW, even the Columbia admitted in a full article that passing homosexual marriage gave homosexuals little gain as they already had all of the benefits heterosexuals had under marriage with the “everything but marriage” law.

    There is no tax benefit for homosexuals as homosexual marriage is not recognized at the federal level and it is highly unlikely it ever will be with well over half of the states now having constitutional amendments banning it.


  19. Lew, the term “partner” is used because currently, we don’t have gay marriage available in this state. Yes, there may be “little” gain in the State of Washington, but still not equal, still not the same. Civil unions are not acceptable until such time that it applies to both heterosexual and homosexual couples equally and universally. Again, have religions oversee the religious ceremony and states oversee the legal contract. I’m good with that, as long as it applies to both equally and universally.

    As long as you believe (not know, believe) that homosexuality is a choice, you will remain unconvinced. There is plenty of evidence pointing toward a genetic code (not a specific gene), but you will not acknowledge it. I don’t care to go down that road with you again, as it got us both nowhere last time. Keep in mind, again, that there is no specific gene that points to being left-handed nor the color of your hair, yet we do, indeed, have left-handed people and people with blond hair. Was that their choice?

    Do “uncontrollable sexual urges” define your relationship with your spouse, Lew? I don’t think so, nor does it mine. A committed relationship is far more than just sex, and to limit a committed homosexual relationship to that is hypocritical.


  20. A rather verbose reply to justify continued discrimination, Greg.

    The fallacy of “Civil unions are not acceptable until such time that it applies to both heterosexual and homosexual couples equally and universally” is that is was homosexuals who first demanded them and now balk at them, demanding full marital rights.

    If you wish to actually make anything “equal,” you first must remove the special status they have assigned themselves as a “protected class status” in our state and elsewhere. That is not equal, but preferential.

    I stand by my comment of “choice” because as I said, everybody has a choice to be sexually active or not.

    And you are right I do not acknowledge the so called ‘gay gene’ as it does not exist. Geneticist have never been able to replicate it, a key portion of identifying an actual gene.

    That someone claims “evidence points towards it” is meaningless. Several false assumptions have been made throughout history due to “evidence pointing to it.”

    It either is or it isn’t.

    And no, I have no “uncontrollable sexual urges” but I don’t claim I have no choice but to be straight either.

    I was faced with making the choice early in my teens when I was molested by an older homosexual. I could have listened to him as he told me how much I was enjoying it.

    I chose differently.


  21. Lew, your example is baseless.

    Again, there is no gene yet discovered to determine whether or not a person is left-handed. A boy reaches the age to play baseball. Because all the other boys are right-handed, his first coach makes him bat and throw right-handed. The next season, the boy understands that he is really left-handed and that is just the way he is, and plays left-handed from then on, because he was born that way.

    Was being left-handed a choice? Did his coach making him play right-handed mean that he had a choice whether or not to be left-handed? Of course not.

    Just because you had a homosexual experience doesn’t mean that you all of sudden had a choice in your sexual orientation, no more than the boy had a choice on whether or not he was left-handed.


  22. Uh Greg, you turning a blind eye and labeling something you disagree with as “baseless” doesn’t make it so.

    They claimed discovery of a left-handed gene in 2007.

    And again, many left handed seek to write right handed and do so. They made a choice.

    For people that scream women should have a “choice,” you sure support denying homosexuals a “choice” for themselves.

    And again, that has nothing to do with homosexual marriage being a forced acceptance over any claim of equality.


  23. “”LRRTM1 is not essential for left-handedness, but it can be a strong contributing factor.”

    Gee, Lew, that is the same language used for possible genetic coding related to homosexuality, which you fiercely reject.

    “However, chimpanzee LRRTM1 is identical to human LRRTM1 so there must be more than just one protein which makes us left-handed, or right-handed for that matter. Like all proteins, LRRTM1 does not act on its own”

    Meaning also, the same with homosexuality. It is more of a genetic code than a single gene.

    So, again, my statement “there is no gene yet discovered to determine whether or not a person is left-handed” remains consistent with science, and if you were honest, you would apply the same demand for left-handed people as you would for homosexuality, as they are both referenced in the same manner by the scientific community.


  24. And yet you ignore your own claim of “no choice” by equating left handedness to homosexuality, even though many left handed people “choose” to become ambidextrous.

    You’re grasping at straws again, Greg, which you often do to cloud the actual topic. Theories do not make your argument stronger.

    Neither you nor anyone else has yet to show hoe allowing homosexuals marital rights improves society, that society you want to shut up about it and just accept it.

    These little side debates are fun, but not productive to the actual topic.

    You can nurture your own latent desires as you please, your business.

    But no one has shown how allowing homosexuals to be “equal” in marriage privilege improves society when you still promote denying other minorities the same privilege as being harmful to society.


  25. “These little side debates are fun, but not productive to the actual topic.”

    Agreed, Lew, and we’re re-hashing old arguments, still going in circles.

    I think I’ve made my view known significantly enough.

    Thanks for giving me the bandwidth.


  26. Gee Greg, you don’t need any kind of “degree” to state that “Homosexuality” is a form of mental illness. All you need is a computer to see that there has never been a “gay gene” discovered, nor any other concrete explanation for “Homosexuality”. Therefore “Homosexuality” is just a deviant “condition” of the mind in a few people of the population.

    Can you show us a “gay gene”, Greg? Maybe it fell between the cracks in your sofa.


  27. I think I will pass on the back and forth discussion on this. Why do I feel it is such a waste of time when we should really be dealing with our economic woes?


  28. The Lefties are trying to destroy the American culture with this sort of nonsensical crap, Jeremy. That’s why it’s not a “waste of time” to kick their miserable asses on then subject.


  29. Jack – I might say I believe there are a lot more things pressing on our nation than running around demonizing people OR making light of and singing into law the gay marriage issue in the state of washington. Honestly, I think it is both a wasted effort when we have such a great need to solve our economic problems instead of going into more debt with more wars, social medicine and many other wastes of time.

    At some point, this whole mess is going to come to the fore. And the debt markers are going to be called and the whole party train is going to be over. I’m not sure if it is going to be in the next two decades or later or sooner. I’m just tired of the mental whipsaw over subjects I find a waste of TIME that we need to actually solve REAL problems, not attention diverters from a lot of different levels of government!


  30. The only reason for having a back-and-forth “whipsaw” is because the Left is trying to force America into doing some things that it doesn’t want to do, Jeremy. Until the Left is defeated the “whipsaw” will continue.


  31. Lew – this is kind of long, but I feel it’s worth watching.


  32. Peggy, it never ceases to amaze me that the people who fight so hard to “protect a woman’s right to choose” to end a life she may be carrying, fight hard to deny someone else their right to VOLUNTARILY choose to change their lifestyle they have become disillusioned with.


  33. Lew? Are you referring to me? Because I didn’t state an opinion on abortion or “reparative therapy”. I just saw this video and thought it was pertinent to the discussion. Did you watch it? What do you think?


  34. Peggy, I’ve seen the video before. I know the treatment is not without controversy, like many treatments are.

    My comment was general in nature, not directed at you.

    I took some Psychology courses years ago, 1980 and the Psychologist who taught one discussed homosexuality with us. According to him, they did have Psychological treatments for homosexuals, but even then the effort was not to change the homosexual, but to make them comfortable with it.

    My contention in the post is that the treatment is VOLUNTARY! Someone must seek it out, it isn’t forced on anyone. They seek it of their own free will.

    Will it work on everybody? Obviously not, but it did on many who were disillusioned with the lifestyle.

    But the keyword remains, it is VOLUNTARY!


  35. This is a tough one for me. Many questions come to mind. To what extent do we protect the ignorant or desperate? Do we deny the right to voluntarily choose a course of treatment that is not only ineffective, but also harmful? I guess you could ask “if they’re going to be stupid enough to waste time, money and jeopardize their mental health – that should be their right”. But at what point do we hold the “treatment providers” accountable? Does this reasoning apply to drug companies as well? If a pharmaceutical creates a drug that has been proven ineffective and also has terrible side effects, should it be legal for that company to peddle their wares? I guess you would say “yes” because people aren’t forced to take the drug. They should have the right to take it if they want. How do you feel about kids undergoing this “treatment”? Should they be 18 in order to decide? Or do their parents get the final say?
    As far as psychologists providing treatment for homosexuals with the effort to “make them comfortable with it” — that makes sense to me. Psychology’s aim is to use the knowledge of human behavior to benefit society and improve people’s lives. So instead of trying to “guilt” or “shame” someone into changing their sexual preference (which could lead to depression and/or suicide), therapists try to help people come to terms with their true identity.
    I have friends who are homosexual and I know that some of them would have paid any amount of money to change that about themselves. Many faced ridicule from their peers, shame from their families and a deep sense of guilt because their religion taught them that homosexuality is a sin. Some of them even tried to deny their sexuality by seeking heterosexual relations — only to be miserable. If I had to pick a therapy for them, it would be one that helped them — not hurt them.
    But I understand that you have strong feelings about homosexuality because you connect it to your experiences as a teen. I’m sorry that you were abused. I’ve dedicated a great portion of my life to working with children who were abused and I understand the tremendous pain of that trauma. I hope that you have found some healing. Best wishes.


  36. First of all, just because some don’t like it doesn’t mean it is ineffective and harmful. No two people react to the same treatment the same way.

    As for parents, where does the state receive the right to step in to decide ow parents raise their children? There is no freedom or liberty in that.

    Could the real reason that some oppose this treatment be that successful outcomes shows the fallacy of “born that way?”

    Do parents not have the right and responsibility to try to divert their children from a wrong path, a path they know will bring trouble to their child? Would you admire a parent that willfully let their child shoot up heroin?

    Left unexplained is how the left whines about suicide and then pushes for state assisted suicide.

    What happened to me as an adolescent does have an impact on my thoughts, how could it not? Still, it doesn’t direct my life, it just gives me an insight others may not have.

    For those comfortable with the lifestyle, more power to them. They bother me not a bit.

    But for those who feel their lifestyle is damaging or have become disillusioned by it, what right do others have to tell them they may not voluntarily seek a treatment to change?

    If people are to have right to their own bodies, how then do you restrict someone else’s right to change their body if they so choose?


  37. I strongly agree that people have a right to their own bodies. That is why I strongly disagree with laws forbidding people to use marijuana or other “controlled” substances. People should have a right to do what they want with their bodies as long as it is not hurting anyone else. So you and I agree on that issue.
    As far as a parent “willfully letting their child shoot up heroin” — my answer is NO – I would not admire that parent. Would you want the state to step in that scenario?


  38. Hey Lew! I think I may have seen you at the parade today! Were you there — wearing a Veteran’s hat and holding a camera? If not, there was a gentleman that looked just like you!


  39. It was probably me, Peggy. Standing by Gentle Dental?


  40. Yes! I was chaperoning a middle school band…I almost said “hi” but then I got embarrassed that it might not be you! Did you get some good pics?


  41. I got a bunch

    The bands are on video, though. I’ll have to see what I can work out with them.

    It was really good parade again this year.


  42. Great pics! Thanks for sharing!


  43. Let me know which Middle School you were chaperoning and I’ll see what video I have it.

    All of the kids were looking so tired by then, but still performing very well I thought


  44. I was chaperoning Pacific Middle School — they were wearing green polo shirts and black pants. And you’re right – they were pretty wiped out at the end! But if you have any pics — I’d love them! Thanks, Lew!


  45. Here is the video I took.

    Feel free to use it as you wish


  46. Oh Lew! Thank you so much! You’re an angel!


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: