Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

On What Politics Could Be


by Brian Leubitz

I’m something of a leftist, just read my writing at Calitics, and you’ll set that pretty clearly. However, I am a big fan of (small “d”) democracy, more than I am of any political party or movement. Democracy has its fair share of problems, many of which stem from too much private money sloshing around the system, but all in all, it’s a pretty good system. Or perhaps I should let Sir Winson Churchill put it more cynically. “It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.”

So, it is with that I turn my attention to the Cato Institute’s Forum on whether there is a place for the LGBT community within the conservative movement. The headline of the act was a Maggie Gallagher vs. Andrew Sullivan battle royale. And I’ll get to that at some point, but my point here is a different one. Check out the audio of the at TheNewCivilRightsMovement, and pay particular attention to the first speaker.

He is British MP Nick Herbert. And earlier this year, he was “civilly partnered” in Britain. But what would be unthinkable here in America, is the fact that he is a Tory, a member of Britain’s Conservative Party. Herbert isn’t the only prominent gay Tory MP to “marry”; earlier this year MP Alan Duncan “married” his long-time partner.  And Herbert believes that the Tories are rapidly becoming as welcoming to the LGBT community as the Labour Party.

‘For the modern Conservative Party, embracing gay equality is neither a temporary phenomenon, nor an agenda which can be reversed.’

[MP Nick Herbert’s] words follow the recent apology by David Cameron over Section 28, the controversial law, passed by the Conservative government in 1988, which banned local councils from promoting homosexuality.

The Tory leader insisted that his party had “changed,” and now believed that homosexual men and women, and civil partnerships between same sex couples, were of equal value to heterosexual relationships and marriages. (Telegraph)

In fact, if the Tories fare well in the next elections for Parliament, which it is looking very likely, there will be more LGBT MPs from the Conservative Party than from the Labour Party.  That is not to say that the Tories don’t have a ways to go on rights for LGBTs in Britain, but they are miles ahead of both the Democratic and Republican parties here in the States.  And frankly, for a nation that once prided itself on producing a melting pot where all were welcome, that is rather disappointing.

Of course, at the same time, the quotes around marry are both demeaning and offensive. And here, neither the Labour or Conservative parties could go that final step to marriage. It is discriminatory and offensive, but as a practical matter, in the UK, gay “married” partners have the same rights as straight married partners.  Minus the air quotes.

The LGBT community will be far better served when one party doesn’t try to suck votes by simply grandstanding to ignorance, and we can support them based on more than a handful of issues. But, there is a threshold question of whether we are respected as human beings. And as long as the LGBT is not respected in one party or another, I suspect a vast majority of votes will continue to stay in one column.


  • 1. Richard W. Fitch  |  February 18, 2010 at 4:20 am

    Most of America was fine with the notion of 'melting pot' as long as it ONLY include white Europeans. In the past few decades the increased percentages of Hispanic, Middle Eastern and African nationals has triggered a withdrawal into strident xenophobia which is now nurtured to its most devisive nature in the radical right.

  • 2. Brian Leubitz  |  February 18, 2010 at 4:22 am

    It runs in waves. In the early 20th century there was a big bout of xenophobia against Eastern Europeans. Before that, the Irish. And, of course, the Chinese were treated terribly here in California.

    Yet, it all seems to simmer into something that's functional. Here's hoping that happens sooner rather than later.

  • 3. Ronnie  |  February 18, 2010 at 4:42 am

    Yeaaaa…I got my "Boys <3 Boise" t-shirt in the male today…hehehe….anywho…so…yeah…that "thing" called me a xenophobic….isn't term used for the majority?….I mean I Love Xena…so I don't know where that "thing" got the idea that I'm xenophobic… terms of what it really mean…I didn't know that Haterosexuals were people from another country or a race of people….however I do have an intense dislike of Heterosexuals….but who in this community doesn't…am I right?….<3…Ronnie

  • 4. Kevin S.  |  February 18, 2010 at 4:49 am

    It's something we often see from a group once they aren't on the bottom of the social totem pole anymore – it repeated itself throughout US history as each new wave of immigration came from another country. I've wondered if that explains part of the African-American community's general antipathy towards LGBTs.

    Brian, very well stated in your final paragraph. As a small-government guy, I've been drawn to the Republicans from time to time because of their economic ideology (when there's a Democrat running things, anyway), but I'm completely horrified by their social stances. I'm forced to choose between equality and (what I feel is) economic sanity, and not within the same issues. So long as the supposed "small government champions" refuse to extend that mentality beyond economics, they're going to lose out on millions of supporters such as myself who believe in basic human decency.

  • 5. Bill  |  February 18, 2010 at 4:55 am

    If you are leaning towards the Republican party due to economic ideology, you might consider doing a bit of research on Republican PERFORMANCE where their ideology is concerned…

    Here's a video clip from the Rachel Maddow Show that you might find interesting. The graph at minute 2:20 is especially enlightening…

  • 6. Andrea  |  February 18, 2010 at 4:58 am

    If you believe in small-d democracy, then drop the Perry case. The people voted, after all. That's what democracy is.

    If you prefer to have a constitution capable of declaring rights, and access to a court system capable of enforcing them, then congratulations, you are a small-r republican. That's what a republic is.

  • 7. Cherylynn  |  February 18, 2010 at 4:59 am

    I'm an American currently living in the UK (it was a bit of a double take to be reading local-ish news!) married to my wife from over here. Although we technically are married (we got married in Massachusetts) no one double takes when we say we're married, or that my partner is my wife because with equal rights (and they are equal in every way but the word) we are treated as if we were any other married couple.

    Sometimes reading this is a serious wake up call to how well we have it in the UK. Yes, we live in London but we visit other places (my partner is from a smallish coastal town which we visit monthly) and no one bats an eyelid.

    I read the Tory's claims above as I would a republicans (sound off for the masses) but here I don't feel in any way repressed by any political parties. And I really hope that it can be like this in the US (which would lead to more choices for gay voters), because it is amazing how much being accepted changes the way you live.

  • 8. Alan E.  |  February 18, 2010 at 5:01 am

    I too am conflicted between social and economic policies. I like to think of myself as an independent, but more of my votes have been going D because of the vitriol behind the R. However, I'm not supportive of pandering just to get a vote.

  • 9. Andrea  |  February 18, 2010 at 5:02 am

    I don't hate heterosexuals, only the perverted things they do with each other. And I don't like them wearing "wedding" rings and putting pictures of their "wives" or "husbands" on their desks at work and being totally in my face about it. In the privacy of their own homes is their business, but I don't think they have the right to be openly heterosexual like that.

  • 10. Ronnie  |  February 18, 2010 at 5:10 am

    I'm an independent…but I voted Dema….because Well at least Obama had the B's to make some promises to the LGBTQQIA community…where as the Repubs..notha until now…they see a sinking ship and are bailing out quickly…except for the tea(trash)baggers who are shooting(haha because Palin is pro-gun) wholes into the bottom of that boat….<3…Ronnie

  • 11. Andrea  |  February 18, 2010 at 5:20 am

    Talk is cheap. When Obama had that homophobe Rick Warren on stage, that was the "tell" I needed to know that he was a charlatan.

    Sarah Palin serves a purpose, which is to "kookify" the opposition. Once she says, "How's that hopey-changey stuff workin' out for ya?" no one else can say it. See how the game works?

  • 12. Bill  |  February 18, 2010 at 5:21 am

    There are FAR better places for LGTB citizens to live than the United States. (and far worse, too.)

    I was in South Africa last year, where same-sex marriage is legal, and I felt more accepted in South Africa than I do in my own country.

    For LGTB citizens, America does not keep its promise of liberty and justice because the heterosexuals that created all of the LGTB citizens demand that they be carved out of the Constitution.

    How moral of them.

  • 13. Alan E.  |  February 18, 2010 at 5:23 am

    I think the pure democracy that California has attempted is the reason the state is lagging behind. There have been so many conflicting amendments and revisions that require only a 50%+1 vote that they have created an interwoven web that is nearly impossible to work through to get anything done.

  • 14. Ronnie  |  February 18, 2010 at 5:25 am

    But would you rather have had her and McLame in office…. two people who have a complete anti-gay agenda?…<3…Ronnie

  • 15. PDXAndrew  |  February 18, 2010 at 5:31 am

    ROFL! I love satire :)
    love, Andrew

  • 16. PDXAndrew  |  February 18, 2010 at 5:38 am

    Ronnie, you slipped, I think… We all dislike the hateros, but I love Fiona and Dave and all our non-same-sex-oriented allies who have the unfortunate condition that labels them heterosexual along with the haters.

    If haterosexual is too difficult, maybe we can call them str-hate instead?

    Love, Andrew

  • 17. Ronnie  |  February 18, 2010 at 5:42 am

    I meant Haterosexuals,,,,,see how easy it is to mix up words…..I have an intense dislike of haterosexuals….I don't have a problem with heterosexuals…after all mostly likely my future husband will have been born and raised by heteros…..but hateros….We should ban Haterosexual Marriage…I mean to people who hate….. being married…I mean what is that….Marriage is between two people who love…or it could be between a person who loves and a person who hates…but 2 hateros…that's just not natural…..<3…Ronnie

  • 18. Ronnie  |  February 18, 2010 at 5:45 am

    I know,pdxandrew….. my mother started asking me a Q when I was typing that and I just noticed it that i switched the words….Fiona, Dave and the others know how I feel about them….everyone that was a typo and I apologize for that…..<3…Ronnie

  • 19. dieter  |  February 18, 2010 at 5:47 am

    a speaker at the Republican cpac meeting:

  • 20. dieter  |  February 18, 2010 at 5:48 am


  • 21. Ronnie  |  February 18, 2010 at 5:58 am

    Who is the slutty Obama Girl?…..<3…Ronnie

  • 22. Layla  |  February 18, 2010 at 5:59 am

    Honeycomb chart of the ssm debate :-)

  • 23. Layla  |  February 18, 2010 at 6:00 am

    We need to find some straight couples in every state with CUs or DPs to do this.

  • 24. Dave T  |  February 18, 2010 at 6:03 am

    IMO, the reason politics works better in Canada (where I'm from – not sure if this is true of the UK), is that the parties have more-or-less stopped trying to legislate on social issues. For example, abortion is legal – you think abortion is wrong? Don't have one. In Canada, the constitution spells out the basic liberties. Somewhere along the line (mid-nineties? late eighties? The Charter of Rights & Freedoms was enacted in 1982) the federal government kind of stepped back and said "we have this document that spells these things out. It's up to the courts to interpret these things." I'm not sure if that was intentional or it just sort of evolved that way. At any rate, the result was that the Supreme Court of Canada, when faced with a case on SSM, said "This country's marriage laws discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. Change them." And parliament did.

  • 25. Andrea  |  February 18, 2010 at 6:06 am

    Yup. The voters subsidize themselves like Socialists, tax themselves like Libertarians, and jail each other like Fascists.

    To top it off, the Legislature can't alter any statute passed at the ballot box, which makes them just a glorified accounting agency, perpetually trying to figure out what services to cut and which properties to privatize, in order to make it through another year.

    If it were up to me, there would be no "initiative amendment" process at all. If people really want initiative statutes that badly, OK, but subject to judicial review prior to going on the ballot, and the Legislature would be able to override voter-approved measures that involve spending or taxation. Just my .02.

  • 26. Bill  |  February 18, 2010 at 6:07 am

    Whereas the U.S. Constitution has been amended only 27 times, California's top legal document has been altered more than 500 times, often by voter initiative. The state's Constitution is the third longest in the world, exceeded only by those of India and Alabama.

    Here's a VERY interesting read:

  • 27. Andrea  |  February 18, 2010 at 6:08 am

    Since you asked, I'd rather have had Ron Paul. Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich were my #2 and #3 choices.

  • 28. Tigger  |  February 18, 2010 at 6:09 am

    If history serves me correctly, when the Germans came over in the 1870-80's the English who were already here pitched a fit. Then the Euro Jews and Irish Catholics came and the English/Scottish/Irish/German WASPs that were here thought the world was gonna end. Then the Italians came and holy crap, that Olive skin and amazing sexual skill was cause for alram. Fast forward to the 60's…and the Cubans!! (still pretty white, educated, wealthy, but spoka de espanich…the humanity!!). Today, its the Mexicans who work 80hours a week, don't cause any problems, and do jobs good ole white Americans don't wanna do…and the sky is falling.

    If you asked me, its the Canadians we need to worry about. They look like us, talk like us, but when you aren't looking they will take your job and the ham and ice cubes right out of your refrigerator!!

  • 29. Bill  |  February 18, 2010 at 6:09 am

    Not even a little bit funny.

  • 30. Bill  |  February 18, 2010 at 6:10 am

    Imagine THAT!

    A country that follows its own laws??????????


  • 31. Linda  |  February 18, 2010 at 6:14 am

    Andrea–that was PERFECT!!!

  • 32. Andrea  |  February 18, 2010 at 6:14 am

    Wow, someone put a lot of time into that!

  • 33. Linda  |  February 18, 2010 at 6:17 am

    What I find fascinating is the ability to change the constitution after the fact so that it causes a piece of legislation which has already been innacted to become 'unconstitutional'. WTF???

  • 34. Anonymous  |  February 18, 2010 at 6:18 am

    Because God knows Canadians need ICE CUBES!!!

  • 35. Ronnie  |  February 18, 2010 at 6:22 am

    Ok it has been released:

    ‘Mt. Vernon Statement’ of Conservative Principles Released to Public
    Wednesday, February 17, 2010
    By Fred Lucas, Staff Writer

    Basically they want to overthrow the democratic party all together….change the constitution….every one of the people who have signed this are anti-equality.

    “The conservatism of the Declaration asserts self-evident truths based on the laws of nature and nature’s God,” the statement reads. “It defends life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It traces authority to the consent of the governed. It recognizes man’s self-interest but also his capacity for virtue. …"

    UMMM…who's God? and notice "man's self interest"…..

    “A Constitutional conservatism unites all conservatives through the natural fusion provided by American principles,” the statement says. “It reminds economic conservatives that morality is essential to limited government, social conservatives that unlimited government is a threat to moral self-government, "

    Ummmm….so only conservatives should be protected by the constitutions….tell me Repubs how you going to enforce that?……

    “It supports America’s national interest in advancing freedom and opposing tyranny in the world and prudently considers what we can and should do to that end. It informs conservatism’s firm defense of family, neighborhood, community, and faith."

    Ummm….who's faith? …and where have we heard this before?…..<3…Ronnie

  • 36. fiona64  |  February 18, 2010 at 6:28 am

    I have been a Kucinich supporter for *years.* Of course, with the new "sponsorship" law that the Supreme Court passed, Kucinich hasn't a chance. He refuses to take money from corporations or special interests.


  • 37. Lesbians Love Boies  |  February 18, 2010 at 8:27 am

    Nice to see the site is back up. 9.2 million blogs were down but this one was the only one I missed.

  • 38. Ronnie  |  February 18, 2010 at 8:29 am


  • 39. Straight Ally #3008  |  February 18, 2010 at 8:30 am

    Tigger, you have to get them to say "about," that's the giveaway.

  • 40. Straight Ally #3008  |  February 18, 2010 at 8:40 am

    I’ve wondered if that explains part of the African-American community’s general antipathy towards LGBTs.

    I'm not sure how well this notion holds up in practice. Sure, the more conservative traditionally black churches have a big influence, but weren't the numbers of blacks supporting prop 8 found to have been exaggerated? And there are people like the NAACP's Julian Bond, and state senators like Ruth Hassell-Thompson and Eric Adams in New York and Nia Gill in New Jersey speaking out strongly for marriage equality, and people like Colin Powell and Sen. Roland Burris speaking out against DADT. I would just like to see some more polling on that, I feel like I don't have the whole story.

  • 41. Straight Ally #3008  |  February 18, 2010 at 8:42 am

    I've said it before and I'll say it again. Amending a state constitution by popular vote is insane.

  • 42. Sara  |  February 18, 2010 at 8:43 am

    This is a complete non sequitur, but does anyone know where I might find the amicus briefs filed for the defendants? I have read all the briefs for our side, but I am interested to know who is filing for the other side and what they are saying and how compelling the arguments are. Anyone?

  • 43. Dave T  |  February 18, 2010 at 8:47 am

    This kind of system is insane. California can't balance it's budget because of artificial limits on taxation enacted through initiatives.

    A number of years ago in Canada, a political party ran on a platform including an initiative system like this. They were widely ridiculed (and thankfully lost – they were a bunch of right-wing religious conservatives). One satirical news TV show went so far as to start collecting signatures for an initiative forcing the leader of the party – whose name is Stockwell Day – to change his name to "Doris". It got over 1 million online signatures (including mine).

  • 44. Straight Ally #3008  |  February 18, 2010 at 8:47 am

    Exactly, Ronnie. Like Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy says, the problem with theocracy is that you end up with a bunch of people "arguing over who gets to be Theo."

  • 45. Ronnie  |  February 18, 2010 at 8:51 am

    And even though he was a character on that show he was only one part of a complete picture….yeah?…<3…Ronnie

  • 46. PDXAndrew  |  February 18, 2010 at 8:53 am

    Yeah… What happened? I was thinking the hateros discovered there was this site dedicated to uncovering all their lies, so they did sone cyber attack, a denial of service or something… I was starting to panic, or at least go into withdrawls.

  • 47. Ronnie  |  February 18, 2010 at 8:55 am

    I said the same thing on FB…lol….<3…Ronnie

  • 48. David Kimble  |  February 18, 2010 at 9:00 am

    Thanx for sharing that with us, Ronnie – that is just plain icky. It is amazing how the "Conservative" movement only can see what they want to see about the founding of America. Their approach, I believe would imperil on a journey, whereby the US would be ruled as a theocracy! Thanx, but NO, I do not want to go there. If this is their vision of America, might I suggest they try forming their "more perfect union" at either the North Pole or the South Pole regions. They are clearly polarizing America with their rhetoric, <3 David

  • 49. PDXAndrew  |  February 18, 2010 at 9:01 am

    What IS the FaceBook name for this group of ours? I haven't figured it out yet (but I'm a bit of a FB n00b)? Was it included with the gay agenda that I must have misplaced?

  • 50. Ed-M  |  February 18, 2010 at 9:03 am

    The tea-baggewrs are the movement conservatives' last hurrah. If they manage to obtain total power (God forbid), they'll be shooting more holes in the bottom of the nation's boat to complement those shot by the repubs under Bush. Amd this time they just might sink it!

  • 51. Ronnie  |  February 18, 2010 at 9:04 am

    it's just…… Prop 8 Trial Trackers….<3…Ronnie

  • 52. Ed-M  |  February 18, 2010 at 9:05 am

    My gaydar went up. Anybode else's?

  • 53. David Kimble  |  February 18, 2010 at 9:06 am

    Hello Ronnie,
    I got your e-mail, but have been unable to respond due to complications with my e-mail program. Do ya' think it could be a "conservative plot" to overthrow the gays? ROFLMAO
    <3 David

  • 54. Ronnie  |  February 18, 2010 at 9:08 am

    definitely…..not as much as Thomas Peters but most def and ding ding ding…followed by flow of glitter…hehehe…<3…Ronnie

  • 55. Ronnie  |  February 18, 2010 at 9:09 am


  • 56. PDXAndrew  |  February 18, 2010 at 9:09 am

    I think there were a few links to some of them in earlier posts (last week I think), but I'm pretty sure the defense never posted a full list.
    Like everything else, it appears as if they're trying to hide everything. I have to believe this is because they KNOW that their entire argument is based on LIES and irrational fear.
    Love, Andrew

  • 57. Sara  |  February 18, 2010 at 9:15 am

    Thanks, Andrew. I'll do a little more searching. I'm just curious as to the legal arguments, though in reality, I am not sure why I torture myself reading them. Ug.

    <3 Sara

  • 58. fiona64  |  February 18, 2010 at 9:39 am

    That's correct, SA. A high degree of religiosity and lack of education were far greater determinants in support for Prop 8 than ethnicity.


  • 59. Ed-M  |  February 18, 2010 at 9:41 am

    Thanks for sharing and linking that article, Ronnie. Whenever so-called "conservatives" speak in high-minded language expressing what they think are universal ideals, it seems to me that they are sugarcoating an agenda of some sort. And here they are talking of "moral self-government" and "limited government." Moral self-government for WHO? Limited government for WHO? You and I and we all know the "social conservatives" are just itching to impose their morally "correct" totalitarianism on all LGBTIQQ people!

  • 60. Sheryl Carver  |  February 18, 2010 at 9:42 am

    Court: La. must put 2 adoptive fathers on document

    Just saw this article on the SF Chronicle site:

    Sounds like the state of Louisiana is going to try really hard to appeal this or otherwise prevent such "awfulness" from happening, but it's at least another step forward. Yeah!

  • 61. Bill  |  February 18, 2010 at 9:46 am

    I posted on their official web site yesterday when it went up. I asked them why a single African American did not sign the statement.

    I asked them if that was becasue they could not find a single African American that AGREED with their statement, or if it was simply because no African Americans were INVITED to sign.

    I told them that I had sent this same post to several media outlets, which I did, pointing out that not a single minority either signed or was asked to participate, and that I felt the news media might find that both interesting, and a bit white-supremecist at the same time.

    Needless to say, they removed my post a few minutes later. These people who signed, they are all rich, racist white folks. Their the KKK without the hoods. Look some of the signers up via Google. You won't be a bit surprised at wh and what you find.

    Bigots through and through.

    Here's their official site:

    Please let them know how you feel!!!!

  • 62. Bill  |  February 18, 2010 at 9:48 am

    whenever a haterosexual couple copulates, the throne of god trembles, casuing brief blog outages…

  • 63. Ronnie  |  February 18, 2010 at 9:49 am

    The funniest thing about it is that they are calling the current political gov. and admin. tyrannical and communist….and yet then are trying to force everybody to be conservative and follow one conservative religion by rewriting the constitution all together…Nooo! nothing communist and tyrannical in that notion….<3…Ronnie

  • 64. Bill  |  February 18, 2010 at 9:51 am

    I guess you guys haven't heard yet.

    They've voted our email rights away, too.

    When' Prop E' goes into effect, LGTB's will only be able to use the abacus and chalkboards.

  • 65. Ronnie  |  February 18, 2010 at 9:52 am

    I agree….It is really hard to say that we need to be 100% peaceful when we see the exact modern image of the KKK and Nazis right there….<3…Ronnie

  • 66. LoriH  |  February 18, 2010 at 9:53 am

    Bwahaahaa. Well I for one am "uncomfortable" when heterosexuals flaunt what they are up to in the bedroom when they display pictures of their children in public.

  • 67. Ronnie  |  February 18, 2010 at 9:55 am

    what's an abacus?….<3…Ronnie

  • 68. Bill  |  February 18, 2010 at 9:59 am

    The haters always scream it's 'all about the children.'

    This article proves them dead wrong. They don't care about 'the children' at all.

    Gay-haters have NO problem passing their vile abuse right along to 'the children.'

    I guess they need to change their rhetorc to: " we are protecting the children. Of heterosexual couples only.'

  • 69. Sheryl Carver  |  February 18, 2010 at 10:01 am

    And SURPRISE! SURPRISE! the comments are closed!
    Must be a mistake, right?

  • 70. Bill  |  February 18, 2010 at 10:02 am

  • 71. Ronnie  |  February 18, 2010 at 10:05 am

    I still don't know what that is…is it like some ancient torture devise?….<3…Ronnie

  • 72. Straight Ally #3008  |  February 18, 2010 at 10:06 am

    Damn, it really is like creationism.

  • 73. David Kimble  |  February 18, 2010 at 10:07 am

    It is interesting, since every conservative website I have ever vistited either "no comments allowed" or their comment section is turned-off. <3 David

  • 74. PDXAndrew  |  February 18, 2010 at 10:12 am

    LOL! That is an awesome chart! Thanks for sharing it


  • 75. David Kimble  |  February 18, 2010 at 10:15 am

    At the top of the list in my view is the "proposition process", which can change the State's constitution, whether it be a legal change or in the case of propH8 an illegal one. <3David

  • 76. Polydactyl  |  February 18, 2010 at 10:16 am

    Ah, relationships across the pond… unfortunately neither my brit partner nor I wanted to live in England, so we had to figure out how to get her over here. Legally.

    Let me just tell you it would have been a H3LL of a lot easier if I just could have married her. It's one of the main reasons I'm fed up with this state-by-state legalization. Even if I could have married her in CA she could not have gotten a green card that way, because it's not recognized by the federal gov't.

    Civil unions are an acceptable substitute for marriage, my @SS. >:|

  • 77. Polydactyl  |  February 18, 2010 at 10:18 am

    If Canada was a little (ok, a lot) warmer I'd move there in a heartbeat.

  • 78. Polydactyl  |  February 18, 2010 at 10:21 am

    Re: 75


  • 79. dieter  |  February 18, 2010 at 10:21 am

    I just got an email stating that I have made it to the next round in my application to run as California redistricting commissioner…wow..who knew I even had a chance?

    they actually stated that part of the decision is based on my ability to understand that there are many different demographic groups in the state including gays and lesbians, and my ability to handle that.

  • 80. Roger  |  February 18, 2010 at 10:24 am

    Athens was a pure democracy (well, more or less — there were significant classes of people who couldn't vote, like foreigners, women and slaves) and look where that got her. Embroiled in the Peloponnesian War, which she lost. That's where.

  • 81. cc  |  February 18, 2010 at 10:27 am

    Lol, Looks like even Adolf Hitler signed it! Well a fake one anyway!

  • 82. waxr  |  February 18, 2010 at 10:32 am

    Bible Passage for the Day:

    Ezra 9:1-2, 10:1-2
    Now when these things had been completed, the leaders approached me and said, “The people of Israel, the priests, and the Levites have not separated themselves from the local residents who practice detestable things similar to those of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Jebusites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Egyptians, and the Amorites. Indeed, they have taken some of their daughters as wives for themselves and for their sons, so that the holy race has become intermingled with the local residents.

    * * * *
    Then Ezra the priest stood up and said to them, “You have behaved in an unfaithful manner by taking foreign wives! This has contributed to the guilt of Israel. Now give praise to the LORD God of your fathers, and do his will. Separate yourselves from the local residents and from these foreign wives.”

  • 83. cc  |  February 18, 2010 at 10:33 am

    Sorry lets try this again!

  • 84. David Kimble  |  February 18, 2010 at 10:34 am

    WOW! – Great news dieter, congrats! <3 David

  • 85. Ronnie  |  February 18, 2010 at 10:39 am

    I'm not a lawyer so I can't do his will….but I can make him a kick @$$ pair of jeans that will emphasize the positive…..<3…Ronnie

  • 86. waxr  |  February 18, 2010 at 10:40 am

    The trick is to divide the voters up so as to give one political party a majority in many districts, while concentrating the voting strength of the other party into as few districts as possible. It is called Gerrymandering.

  • 87. Bill  |  February 18, 2010 at 10:44 am

    They wanted to sign this document at George Washinton's residence, but were denied that request.


    Not even the f'ing GHOST of George Washington wants to be affiliated with this bunch of wackadoos.

  • 88. David Kimble  |  February 18, 2010 at 10:44 am

    Yeppers, you got it right, waxr! Everytime redistricting comes up it's like a clash of the titans. Just one thing, isn't Gerrymandering illegal?

  • 89. Skemono  |  February 18, 2010 at 10:53 am

    If you asked me, its the Canadians we need to worry about.

    Canadians? Or… "Canadians"?

  • 90. PDXAndrew  |  February 18, 2010 at 10:54 am

    Civil unions might be acceptable ONLY if they had ALL the legal, financial, health care, travel, and all the sundry things the hateros are denying us.
    And ONLY if all the hetero marriages were relegated to a Religious-Only status, like being a Deacon or something.
    Then, I could get married in a church that DOES support same-sex marriage, and get the legal equality that the others get… Then and only then might we have Equality.
    And I say might. Who knows what other roadblocks the hateros will dream up by then.


  • 91. Skemono  |  February 18, 2010 at 11:02 am

    Because Ron Paul loves gays, right?

  • 92. Andrea  |  February 18, 2010 at 11:03 am

    The Mount Vernon document is clean, even noble, if one uses the historic constitutional language as a reference. The problem is that the hypocritical theocratic moral crusaders write their own dictionaries.

  • 93. PDXAndrew  |  February 18, 2010 at 11:09 am

    LOL, Bill :)

  • 94. David Kimble  |  February 18, 2010 at 11:24 am

    I can only assume the comment about Ron Paul was intended, as a joke. I find it stark that currently only the Democrats have a platform that supports gay rights, yet they stop at the "MARRIAGE" issue, like a derailed freight train. We have what we have in politics and unfortunately, while the Democrats appeal for our votes and our money, they really offer little more than lip service to our community. <3 David

  • 95. Richard Walter (soon  |  February 18, 2010 at 11:29 am

    I listened to the audio, including the comments from the MP who spoke. Indeed, the British are far ahead of us in civil rights for LGBTQQI's. And their civil partnerships are not just for same gender couples, they are the legal term for marriage for all. This separates the religious from the state, making everyone equal. This way, everyone is treated the same, and the religions that do not want to perform the ceremony for same gender couples do not have to. However, this is NOT what Magpie wanted to hear.

  • 96. dieter  |  February 18, 2010 at 11:35 am

    OMG!!! I forgot that I had two of my e-mail accounts linked, and I just went to check the one I hardly ever use and there were 1248 emails from this trial tracker site..LOL…

  • 97. Straight Dave  |  February 18, 2010 at 11:48 am

    Ultra-Catholic Portugal goes to the head of the SSM queue.,,510107…

    Makes the US look like genuine Neanderthals. But what else is new.

    Please sign off on this the day Poopie Benedict XVI lands in the country. Just imagine the dignified pissing and moaning!

    Is Albania next? You laugh!
    It is now an open question worthy of discussion, in contrast to the "modern" liberty-for-all Uneducated States of America. it's mind-boggling, really.

    SSM marriage is now in play on 5 continents. Canada and some US states, Mexico City, Tierra del Fuego state in Argentina, lots of Europe, S. Africa, soon Nepal. See a trend? Come on, Rome! You can do it. Rub it in, just like DC (2 weeks left, baring a judicial brain cramp).

    Notice the lack of religious deference and respect?
    The times they are a changing.

  • 98. truthspew  |  February 18, 2010 at 11:56 am

    Actually the U.S. needs a strong progressive party. Democrats have been tacking right for many years. I think they really believe that it's the only way they can really get elected.

  • 99. R Lavigueur  |  February 18, 2010 at 12:01 pm

    Personally I've never met a Canadian who said it "aboot", I'm pretty sure our goverment secretly spreads that one to you American folks so that our agents have an easier time evading detection : )

  • 100. Straight Dave  |  February 18, 2010 at 12:16 pm

    The Dems do believe that, but I don't think they need to. The repubes have just freaked them out. The Dems just need some balls. It's called leadership and confidence in your values and positions. I truly believe the public is ready for that and can handle it. Obama has the chops, but has been shy to go after it, so far. The right wing needs to be called out more, in terms that ordinary people can identify with. Just appeal to their real values and they might soon catch on to who is really on their side.

  • 101. R Lavigueur  |  February 18, 2010 at 12:19 pm

    Technically, this is only half true. There were three provincial cases around same-sex marriage (Ontario, Quebec, and British Columbia) where the highest provincial courts ruled that the opposite sex limitation on marriage violated the constitution.There were cases in some of the other provinces as well, and there were moves to bring those cases to the supreme court. Note that in Canada, marriage law is governed at the federal and not provincial level.

    Now at the time, we had the Liberals in power, and they typically had worked on a policy of "gay rights when necessary but not necessarily gay rights", in many ways similar if slightly more proactive than what we see from a lot of Democrats in the US. The Liberals were already asking questions around the country about same sex marriage, and found Canadians split pretty much evenly about the issue. There was the looming prospect of a supreme court case, which would have taken things out of their control.

    So what the government did was refer the question of same sex marriage to the supreme court. This basically means that they asked the court if the opposite sex restriction was constitutional, but they also asked three other questions as well about whether they could change the definition, if religious groups needed to be protected, and if same sex marriage would be constitutional. The supreme court answered those three, but left unanswered whether or not the opposite sex restrictions were constitutional.

    So the Liberals found themselves in a sticky situation. They had about half the country on either side of the debate, with support for SSM growing; they had the precedent set by three separate rulings in three of the largest provinces all supporting SSM and debunking the arguements against, and the supreme court refused to answer a question that would either
    A: Let the government stop SSM or
    B: Let the government adopt SSM but blame it on the courts

    So they held a vote, and it passed, and SSM became legal all across Canada. Following the next election, the Conservatives held another vote, wanting to change things back, but they were defeated and let the issue die a quiet death.

    Long story short, while the supreme court was involved in the process, they never actually did have to rule on the issue, because the goverment moved first and made it a moot point. But it was an interesting process all around.

  • 102. fiona64  |  February 18, 2010 at 12:27 pm

    :;raises hand::

    I dated a guy from Toronto who, when in his cups, actually did say "aboot." He worked very hard not to say it under other circumstances (or so he told me).


  • 103. Cubby  |  February 18, 2010 at 12:43 pm

    Hi, I'm college student in Virginia and I just wanted to let you guys know I really appreciate all the work you guys have put into this site. I rarely have the time to get on here and read teh new blogs, but I just wanted to let you know that I really admire what you guys do and stand for and I look forward to everytime I get on here. Yet again thank you and I cant wait til I can get on here next.

  • 104. Ronnie  |  February 18, 2010 at 12:45 pm

    I don't know is all of you have seen this website…you probably have…but I have not…I just found it today…There are a lot of great photos….over 3000 i believe…..I might pick the best, however hard that may be, and make a video….It's the "NO H8 campaign that Meghan McCain is apart of…….<3…Ronnie

  • 105. Ronnie  |  February 18, 2010 at 12:55 pm

    Oh and Here is one of the videos from that website…"I Am"

    For Me I am A Gay American Fashion Designer….Who are You?….<3…Ronnie:

  • 106. PDXAndrew  |  February 18, 2010 at 12:59 pm

    YES! that would be sooooo totally awesome!

  • 107. Ronnie  |  February 18, 2010 at 1:02 pm

    I concur…..<3…Ronnie

  • 108. Richard Walter (soon  |  February 18, 2010 at 1:12 pm

    Thanks, Dopty-son. I just signed up for their email updates. Now, how do I get our picture on there? They need to see more than just the two young ladies who represent the Jewish faith (Mayim Bialik and Shoshannah Stern). They could really use some middle aged Jewish men also. But again, Thanks!♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥ ♥

  • 109. PDXAndrew  |  February 18, 2010 at 1:16 pm

    Actually, cc, I think the real Adolf Hitler DID sign it…
    "The National Government will regard it as its first and foremost duty to revive in the nation the spirit of unity and cooperation. It will preserve and defend those basic principles on which our nation has been built. It regards Christianity as the foundation of our national morality, and the family as the basis of national life." 
    –Adolph Hitler (1889-1945)  My New World Order, Proclamation to the German Nation at Berlin, February 1, 1933

  • 110. Straight Dave  |  February 18, 2010 at 1:21 pm

    OK, Andrew, we have caught you on tape.

    "14. PDXAndrew | February 18, 2010 at 12:38 pm
    We all dislike the hateros, but I love Fiona and Dave"

    You are now officially outed as Bi. Not that I have any objection to that, but how am I going to explain this to my wife?

    <3 Straight Dave :)

  • 111. PDXAndrew  |  February 18, 2010 at 1:22 pm

    Hello and welcome!
    Love, Andrew

  • 112. Ronnie  |  February 18, 2010 at 1:40 pm

    You're welcome….I don't how to get pics on there…I will look more at the website 2morro…I went through all of their main pics…and that took a wile…. i have to narrow it down I chose over 600 that really stood out…..<3…Ronnie

  • 113. G. Rod  |  February 18, 2010 at 1:46 pm

    When Canadians arrive, coming from either their west, north or east coast, they take for granted that their same sex marriages will be recognized. NY for one will do so

  • 114. Andrea  |  February 18, 2010 at 1:51 pm

    I wasn't kidding about Ron Paul. Y'all know that he and Dennis Kucinich are good friends, right?

    Don't take my word for it, take theirs.

  • 115. Sheryl Carver  |  February 18, 2010 at 2:52 pm

    Way to go, Dieter!
    Keep us all posted. Can you imagine what this state could become if there were more people like you (intelligent, aware, rational) involved in public service?
    Good luck! <3 Sheryl

  • 116. Kevin S.  |  February 18, 2010 at 3:45 pm

    I did say "when a Democrat is running things." They tend to only remember that they're supposed to be all small-government and what-not when they hate the guy running the show. Trust me, I don't need Rachel Maddow to remind me that the GOP has let people with small government ideals down over and over again.

  • 117. Billy  |  February 18, 2010 at 4:46 pm

    What kind of filth is this guy? The left out the excerpt where he bashed gays and african americans all in one sentence.

    Did you see his eyebrows?

    I bet he smells like lube and regret.

  • 118. Billy  |  February 18, 2010 at 4:53 pm

    Danger Will Robinson! Danger! Danger!

  • 119. Matt  |  February 18, 2010 at 7:22 pm

    How about "heterosexists?" I think that term has been around for a while anyways.

  • 120. David Kimble  |  February 19, 2010 at 12:47 am

    'Maggie Gallagher truly, truly believes she is right and that God is on her side. Maggie Gallagher truly, truly believes she is right and that you are wrong. Maggie Gallagher truly, truly believes in her ideals. Maggie Gallagher truly, truly believes she’s Jack Nicholson in “A Few Good Men”. But the problem is, her version of “You can’t handle the truth” is devoid of the error of emotion. Maggie Gallagher truly, truly believes she’s not a bigot as she proudly attacks you with her bigotry.' This is a quote from the same website, Brian Leubitz referenced in his article. I agree with this summation of Maggie Gallagher and her troop of wolves in sheep's clothing.
    I get the sense, Maggie wishes she could just wave a magical wand and poof, we would all disappear from her perverse vision of reality.<3 David

  • 121. fiona64  |  February 19, 2010 at 1:38 am

    I would go with "heterosexist" in a second. In fact, I have used the term more than once when referring to Prop 8 supporters "sitting in their position of heterosexist privilege and using it as a cudgel against those of whom they disapprove."


  • 122. fiona64  |  February 19, 2010 at 1:40 am

    Ronnie, it's an accounting device that I have tried (and given up) to understand.


  • 123. Ronnie  |  February 19, 2010 at 1:46 am

    LOL….Fiona64….there is no accounting that it actually works…unless they want us to use the little stones to to ummm…stone them?….hehehe…. <3…Ronnie

    P.S. I know what it is…I was making fun of the fact that they forget what age we are in…and that their lies can be debunked by a few google, youtube, and BING!!!…searches….lol…<3…Ronnie

  • 124. Go_proton77  |  February 19, 2010 at 3:55 am

    Look,we want you to stay off our sacred ground. Keep your choices away our children, and none of normal people wil care what you do. Marriage is sacred and we do not want the gay agenda to be belittle our roles.

  • 125. Go_proton77  |  February 19, 2010 at 4:08 am

    We are not haters, we are protectors of all that is right with humanity. Your choices are dangerous and nasty.

  • 126. Richard Walter (soon  |  February 19, 2010 at 4:08 am

    Hello! Go_proton77! the pharmacy called. Your meds are ready. It is obvious that you haven't had them in several days. Otherwise you would be rational about life. We are not seeking to invade your "sacred" churches, we are looking for the LEGAL recognitionof our basic civil and human rights to marry the ones we love. Marriage is a basic human right and those who continually throw religion into the mix by ranting and raving about "sanctity" and "sacred ground" need to re-read the very texts they are trying to oppress us with. These same texts were used to justify oppression of other minorities–people of color, people with various mental and physical challenges, and women. Those have been struck down as greater knowledge about those very texts has come to light. So why don't you just crawl back under your rock and hibernate until you grow up and can be adult about this and realize that marriage equality is not going to hurt your marriage. What will harm your marriage is if you abuse your wife the way you abuse us on this site.

  • 127. Ronnie  |  February 19, 2010 at 4:09 am

    Oh look something that was banned weeks ago is back…..Julia block this homophobic TROLL….the world doesn't belong to TRASH BAG…I didn't know America was sacred ground?…..what about our children?…..and some of your children are gay…..There is no document that says specifically that marriage is sacred…nice try though Haterosexual…..There is no such thing as a "Gay Agenda"..that's only in your little delusional brain…..Go live in Uganda you murdering trash bag….<3…ronnie

  • 128. Richard Walter (soon  |  February 19, 2010 at 4:12 am

    As for the "gay agenda" it consists of the following: Seek out our full rightsto coexist as human being wthout the government interfering in our lives at home, and without being forced out of jobs when we refuse to lie about who we are. It consists of being able to go where we need togo without being in constant terror that some ignnoramus with a belly full of alcohol and a baseball bat, tire iron, or logging chain is going to attack us. In short, the gay agenda consists of getting the government out of not only our private lives but out of yours as well. For the very rights you insist the government take away from us are the same rights that the government will take away from you next.

  • 129. Kathleen  |  February 19, 2010 at 4:31 am

    I usually don't respond to trolls. I've found that, like most things to do with ego, feeding it just exacerbates the problem. And I'm sure I'll regret it this time, but just had to say….

    Go_proton77 said "…Keep your choices away our children, and none of normal people wil [sic] care what you do."

    I couldn't agree more. Your choices to embrace hateful attitudes toward your fellow law abiding citizens and to encourage your own children to adopt that same immoral lifestyle that you live is your own business. I truly feel sad for what you're doing to your children's lives, but all I can do is to insist that you "keep your choices away from" MY/OUR children and ME (and the rest of the normal people) and we won't care what you do. You can think any sort of perverted, anti-social thoughts you want; you just don't have a right to act on them to the point of denying other people's right to be treated with respect and equality under the law.

  • 130. Ed-M  |  February 19, 2010 at 4:42 am

    So would I.

  • 131. Ed-M  |  February 19, 2010 at 5:06 am

    I guess they need to change their rhetorc to: ” we are protecting the heterosexual children. Of heterosexual couples only.’

    There, I fixed it for ya.

  • 132. Kathleen  |  February 19, 2010 at 5:16 am

    It pre-dated the slide rule.

    Okay folks, show your age – how many here learned to use a slide rule in math or physics classes? (I suppose you could show your age by indicating who here was required to take math and physics classes to graduate high school)

  • 133. Kathleen  |  February 19, 2010 at 5:18 am

    Oops. My little "evil grin" thingy didn't show up …. that post was meant as a gentle poking fun….

  • 134. John  |  February 19, 2010 at 5:18 am

    I have a slide rule, but only used it to look cool ("cool" having a rather different meaning in my circle of friends, of course). For practical purposes, a graphing calculator was much more useful.

  • 135. Kathleen  |  February 19, 2010 at 5:26 am

    I went to high school decades before Casio introduced the first graphing calculators. I know it's hard to imagine, but there are those of us who studied conic sections without them. :)

  • 136. Kathleen  |  February 19, 2010 at 5:27 am

    Oops again. That was John who referenced the graphing calc.

  • 137. John  |  February 19, 2010 at 5:28 am

    We have it easy these days, I guess.

  • 138. Ronnie  |  February 19, 2010 at 5:33 am

    Casio?…What's that?….I use texas Instruments…Oh and my iPhone….LOL……..<3…Ronnie

  • 139. fiona64  |  February 19, 2010 at 5:37 am

    I had to take math and physics … but never learned to use a slide rule.


  • 140. Richard Walter (soon  |  February 19, 2010 at 9:00 am

    Kathleen, I graduated from school so long ago that if you even used a Texas Instruments TI-30 (The one that came with the book telling you all the neat little things youcould do with a calculator, and the vinyl carrying case that was made to look like denim) you got a 0 for your grade and reported to the principal for cheating. When I was in school you had to show your work and larn how to do math in your head or with pencil and paper. So I guess I am probably older than you are.

  • 141. Ronnie  |  February 19, 2010 at 9:02 am

    What's a pencil?……<3…Ronnie

  • 142. straight grandmother  |  February 19, 2010 at 9:10 am

    I have come up with a new term. People who would deny LGBT's any civil rights at all of course are well recognized as Bigots. For the pople who would offer Civil Unions that are equal but seperate from full Civil Marriage I coin the term Demi-Bigot.

  • 143. Kathleen  |  February 19, 2010 at 9:18 am

    Sorry, Richard. It think the TI-30 came out some time in the 1970s. I'd graduated high school by then – 1968, actually. So you don't have to do the math, I'm 59 (graduated a year early). :) Surely I'm not the oldest person here, am I?

  • 144. Straight Dave  |  February 19, 2010 at 9:31 am

    I admit to being from the slide rule generation. A pretty clever piece of engineering for its time. I had a nifty one my freshman year of college, but ended up selling it to get plane fare home in the summer. I've always regretted doing that.

    I now have an abacus that is capable of counting in hexadecimal, a gift from a Korean girl I went to school with. That one I'm not ever giving up.

  • 145. Straight Dave  |  February 19, 2010 at 9:36 am

    Nope, Kathleen. I'm 60y1m24d.
    You're in the clear. Celebrate your youth, girl!

    Though I also graduated in 68.
    god!!! that was a heluva long time ago

  • 146. Straight Dave  |  February 19, 2010 at 9:44 am

    Ronnie – Do you even own anything that doesn't require electricity?

  • 147. Ronnie  |  February 19, 2010 at 9:55 am

    LMAO….The glasses I wear….but even those are modern (transition lenses and frameless)… clothes…but some of them are ahead of their time….I've got this t-shirt that is permanently wrinkled but is made out of the same fabric most tees are…Those Chinese are awesome geniuses…..what else?……no I think that's it…."I love living in the Future"….now if only i had something that could walk my dog like in Back to the future….although I think there is something that can do…I'm gonna look into it…lol…….<3…Ronnie

  • 148. Go_proton77  |  February 19, 2010 at 9:58 am

    Ronnie, we believe your behavior (anal penetration, and fellatio homo) is dangerous,vile and unnatural. Your sex behavior defines you. You people are making some serious and outrageous demands to place your behavior as something equal to mine. I'm trying to raise my family as normal and you people perform unnatural sex and choose a way of life that is damaging, and demand the whole world kiss your ass and accept your filth as equal to my marriage. You people are sticking your necks out for what you want and that's fine….we in turn disagree and you can find true peace as normal people. Noone hates gays!!!!! We want you to be happy without intruding on the sanctity of marriage. Stay out of marriage….you can be happy with the behavior you choose. Stay out of our childrens minds!!!! We will teach them never hurt someone different, but also your sex is a choice and it is a terribly wrong one. You can choose to be normal…choose exodus international and get help, no one will turn you away, you can escape this………

  • 149. Richard Walter (soon  |  February 19, 2010 at 9:59 am

    You're right, Kathleen, the TI-30 came out in 1978. I remember so well because I bought one during the back to school sale that year with money I earned on my paper routes. Unfortunately, I was not able to use it for school, but I was still able to use it for my paper routes, so I was able to deduct it as a business expense. I have to admit, you don't look like a 68 graduate. I truly did think you were younger than me because of your picture on FB. I was thinking you might have graduated high school about 1995 or thereabouts.

  • 150. Straight Dave  |  February 19, 2010 at 10:10 am

    Richard, that was her yearbook photo, you dummy.
    See how smart she is.

  • 151. Richard Walter (soon  |  February 19, 2010 at 10:18 am

    But it di not look like the grainy pictures I was used to seeing from that era. I still think she probably looks way younger than 59! After all, in fiona's pictures, she looks to be in her mid 20's

  • 152. Ronnie  |  February 19, 2010 at 10:18 am

    Then why don't you ask your Haterosexuals why they do it too….and what does it have to do with Lesbians….and how do you even know that I have sex….you are ASSuming that I do….and if it occurs in nature…which it does…open a science book….then it is natural….how is it dangerous?….am I killing you?….No….calling somebody who you don't even know is vile TRASH BAG!!!!!!….actually since I have only had same sex sex with 2 men in my life and only less then 10 times…I actually have next to no sexual behavior…but nice try though…..You are a mind reader and know that I chose to live my life being discriminated against….Did I choose for you to come on this site and talk to me the way you are….NO that was your choice TRASH BAG……Really because God would never say that the garbage that you are posting is a product of love…and straight people don't murder gay people….NOT!!!!…..Ther is no such thing as sanctity of marriage when 2 people who don't even know each other can get married only because they are opposite gender…nice try though….and again what about our children dumb ASS…….marriage is not something you stay out of…it's not a thing….it's not a room that you can walk into…FOOL!!!!!……..when did you choose to be hatero?….and how exactly did you hack your way back into this site after being banned and blocked?…I will die before I ever have sex with a women…no offense to my female friends…..Oh a P.S. FU<K OFF!!!!!!!……..<3…Ronnie

  • 153. Richard Walter (soon  |  February 19, 2010 at 10:19 am

    MAZEL TOV, dieter! Way to go! And you can only go up from here!

  • 154. Kathleen  |  February 19, 2010 at 10:24 am

    Richard, that must have been the picture of the 14 y.o. me I had up from a "way back week" thing fb was doing. The original, uncropped, photo is in one of my fb albums and if you look at the background, it's a wall full of George Harrison (my fave Beatle) created during the height of '60s Beatlemania. heehee

    If you send me a friend request, I'll friend you and you can see a couple of more recent photos of me. Vanity has made me a bit camera shy recently – ever since the chronic Lyme disease has made me balloon up to almost twice my usual weight. There is one there, though, from a couple of years ago.

    I'm glad to honor friend requests on fb from anyone of the great people here — just make sure you let me know who you are from this site.

  • 155. Go_proton77  |  February 19, 2010 at 10:47 am

    So people can abort their own 3rd trimester babies and canadians are o.k with that. That's b.s and we still hold the moral high ground.

    Canadians understand homosexuality is a terrible choice, and they also know abortion is f_clking murder. People in Canada can be gay and happy without demanding to be married, so back to the hockey game. Were busy trying to defend marriage.

  • 156. Richard Walter (soon  |  February 19, 2010 at 10:50 am

    Kathleen, I sent a friend request on FB, and even mentioned your picture in the comment I sent with it. Of course, this will also make it easier for you to check up and see the wedding pictures too once we get to CT and get them posted after the ceremony.

  • 157. Ronnie  |  February 19, 2010 at 10:53 am

    Everybody I have sent several emails to Julia and courage Campaign reporting Go_proton77….I am also contacting the FBI cyber crimes division and the Police….This person was banned and blocked weeks ago….<3…Ronnie

  • 158. Go_proton77  |  February 19, 2010 at 10:55 am

    Ronnie you are good person. The gay Agenda is crossing some serious boundries and we want marriage to be left alone.we believe in freewill and choices. Make healthy and natural choices and call exodus….their is help. Theirs love right their… Hang in their man, be happy and get on the right track….

  • 159. Ronnie  |  February 19, 2010 at 10:58 am

    Then why is Marriage legal in Canada……nice try though and pardon the following language but this person needs to watch this video……<3…Ronnie:

  • 160. Ronnie  |  February 19, 2010 at 11:02 am

    You whatever Haterosexual HOMOPHOBE…check out the video i dedicated to you….D0<HE!!!!!……<3….Ronnie

  • 161. Felyx  |  February 19, 2010 at 11:11 am

    You too buddy, hang in there…I am sure you will find a dictionary someday!!!

  • 162. Richard Walter (soon  |  February 19, 2010 at 11:26 am

    to Go_Proton77. Why on earth would you want to send someone to a place where they would be subjected to electroshock "therapy" to cure something that is NOT a malfunction? Perhaps you need to go to Bigots anonymous and find out how the 12 Steps and 12 Traditions can help you to become the man God always wanted you to be–one who does not judge another person, one who does not try to deny someone his or her human rights just because they are different from you, somoeon who does not try to read G-d's mind. Once you arrive at that point, then you will possibly be of some positive use to G-d and to humankind. Until then, go crawl back under your rock!

  • 163. Richard Walter (soon  |  February 19, 2010 at 11:32 am

    @#26: YOu are the sick one. Anyone who would subject another human being to electroshock "therapy" to "cure" something that is normal, truly needs help. By the way–Walgreens called. You really need to get there before the pharmacy closes and pick up your meds, especially the injections they have to administer onsite.

  • 164. fiona64  |  February 19, 2010 at 11:43 am

    Dear Go_Proton_77:

    I speak as a straight, married woman.

    You are the vile, disgusting person posting here. Your obsession with male-male sex is obvious in every post. I pity your wife and children, to tell you the truth, because they have to live with such a hate-filled person.

    The only pervert I see posting here is you. The only person I see making reference to sexual acts is you.

    Get counseling.


  • 165. Go_proton77  |  February 19, 2010 at 3:04 pm

    Look man we just want to keep marriage between a man and a woman. You all filed the lawsuits were just trying raise our families.

  • 166. Go_proton77  |  February 19, 2010 at 3:13 pm

    Fiona, are you kidding?

    Noone anywhere has a problem with gays, we have a problem with the radical gay agenda pushing marriage as equal to hetero people. We voted a couple of times on this and the gay agenda keeps coming back.we are standing up for traditional marriage.

  • 167. Ronnie  |  February 19, 2010 at 3:16 pm

    Blah blah…Marriage is not a thing you can't keep it….and the def has already been changed in 8 states 9 countries ….you already lost it even though it is not a "thing" you can loose because….um its not a thing…..F-ing dumb ass swatzy….and again what about our families….and I didn't file any lawsuit….so nice try with that one TRASH BAG!!!!!…..I hope your "kids" all turn out to be gay and then I hope the gov takes them away because we know that all you will do is electrocute them……MURDERER……Hacker….TROLL!!!!……<3…Ronnie

  • 168. dieter  |  February 19, 2010 at 3:23 pm

    dedicated to YOU go_proton:

  • 169. Ronnie  |  February 19, 2010 at 3:31 pm

    keep telling yourself that FU<K FACE….I've given your SN to the FBI……where is your proof?….NONE!!!……suck my http://www….male chicken…..sheet wrangler……..You are standing up for communism….whose "traditional" marriage…..Islam?……Native American?…..Traditional marriage that makes interracial marriage illegal….nice try MURDERER……….GO OFF YOURSELF BIGOT!!!

    and yet again you are wrong and forget that heterosexuals support marriage equality…………HATERosexulas…..YOU are nothing….ZERO…you are TRASH…..Your wife is garbage….and I feel bad for your kids…because most likely they will be trash like you….FU<K OFF banned one… are clearly a hacker because you were banned weeks ago and I was emailed that you were….so FU<K OFF……..<3…Ronnie

  • 170. Go_proton77  |  February 20, 2010 at 1:19 am

    Look, we express free speech because this issue has been brought on by you against us. I'm ok with you being passionate about this.

    We believe natural marriage is too important, for gays to hijack. We believe the gay lifestyle is a wrong "choice".

  • 171. Go_proton77  |  February 20, 2010 at 1:27 am

    cute video….

    This marriage thing is serious business. It's way to important to be trivialized.

    We want you to be happy, just stay away from traditional marriage.

  • 172. Ronnie  |  February 20, 2010 at 1:29 am

    Marriage is not a plane you can't hijack a word…DUMB ASS…read the fu<king dictionary and look it up…..8 states and 9 countries define marriage as both so the "word" already belongs to us HOOD RAT…. there is no such thing as "natural" marriage…..and obviously you think you are a mind reader and you know if I made a choice…when did you chose to be a Hatero?….answer the FU<KING Q….or STFU..TRASH BAG!!!!!!

    Actually you BIGOTS brought it up by interfering in our lives …. but nice try though Swatzy

    We Know that the Hatero lifestyle is illegal..which it is…there are laws…look up BRAIN DEAD!!!!

  • 173. fiona64  |  February 20, 2010 at 1:31 am

    Dear Proton-thing:

    How are you "defending traditional marriage"? I just want to know. How is your "traditional marriage" affected in the slightest by someone else's marriage, gay or straight? If you want to protect "traditional marriage," then I suggest you lobby for laws against divorce and contraception, and for a return to coverture law. After all, those were "traditional."

    What you are doing is trying to mask your bigotry under religion. It isn't working, Proton. People see right through it. "We don't hate gay people, we just don't want them to have the same rights we do" is bigotry, pure and simple. Substitute "black" or "Jewish" for gay, Proton. You'll see the point.

    How about if you worry about what goes on in your own home and leave other people alone? People voting to take away the rights of others is diametrically opposed to what the Founding Fathers envisioned. You might want to take a gander at Federalist Paper No. 10 if you are uncertain of that fact.

    And no, I am not kidding. I believe that marriage is *strengthened* every time another couple gets married. If your marriage is so weak that you find it affected by the wedding of some couple you don't even know, I suggest therapy.


  • 174. Ronnie  |  February 20, 2010 at 1:32 am

    There is no such thing as traditional marriage…do you really think repeating yourself actually works?….Oh p.s. i've given your SN to the FBI…..freedom of speech is one thing but hacking into a website that you were banned and blocked from is illegal….look it up…. X /

  • 175. fiona64  |  February 20, 2010 at 1:34 am

    I think someone is either in need of meds or is on too many of them … Proton, it's time for your nap.


  • 176. fiona64  |  February 20, 2010 at 1:36 am

    Richard, I'm gonna let you follow me all over the place and talk about how I look like I'm in my mid-30s. I'm 46. :-)


  • 177. Ronnie  |  February 20, 2010 at 2:15 am

    I have filed a complaint with IC3, the Internet Crime Complaint Center….about Go_proton77…..IC3 is a a devision of the FBI…a.k.a…The cyber crimes devision.

    Here are the links:

  • 178. Ronnie  |  February 20, 2010 at 2:17 am

    I have filed a complaint with IC3, the Internet Crime Complaint Center….about Go_proton77…..IC3 is a a devision of the FBI…a.k.a…The cyber crimes devision….<3…Ronnie

  • 179. dieter  |  February 20, 2010 at 4:46 am

    Look Spanky, let me school you on a few things. First of all:
    You do not own traditional marriage, but if traditional marriage is what you want then let me help. You see it clearly states in the bible that any woman who is not a virgin on her wedding day shall be stoned to death. Good. OK I have a truck full of stones and quite a good throwing arm, so PLEASE…give me your wife's address and I shall see to it that she gets exactly what YOU requested: a TRADITIONAL marriage. secondly, YOU are the ones who have brought the issue upon yourselves. All we asked for is IDENTICAL rights. NOT special rights as your side loves to lie about all the time…EQUAL rights. By your selfish denial you have forced our hand on this. If not for People like you who feel more important and self entitled, then this issue would not even be here. if we already had equal rights then you would not even know we were here…so kindly go f*ck yourself, oh and have a lovely day. you TWAT!!

    seems to me if you were being honest with yourselves, that instead of attacking others under the guise of protecting marriage, then you would be out there fighting people who get divorces…just so you know…divorces are an abomination in the bible you love to cherry pick from…

  • 180. Go_proton77  |  February 20, 2010 at 5:29 am

    HaaaaaHaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!! Hacked into a website I've been banned from. Are you joking??? Maybe someone in Russia or those spammers in Nigeria know about hacking. Sorry man, haven't been blocked on this site yet.

    Freedom of speech….

    Now back to the point, you all do not need marriage to feel better. I think civil unions are fine .
    Now stop the madness, their are alot of resources out their for you to get help, if you choose to leave the lifestyle.

    It is not a civil right to choose a lifestyle and then demand everyone accept it. If their was a study that said gay people were born to behave this way, maybe we could analyze that.

    You chose it and no one hates you for it. Now stop trying to upset the balance of our western culture with your selfish demands.

    We want you all to be successful and happy without demanding to upset marriage in our society.

  • 181. fiona64  |  February 20, 2010 at 5:38 am

    Dear Wingnut Proton:

    Thing the first. There is no freedom of speech on the internet. You are allowed to post here on the sufferance of the Courage Campaign, and are subject to their terms of service as a result.

    Thing the second: I am puzzled about this choice business that you bring up. Insisting that people have chosen to be gay must mean that you, too, made a choice to be straight. When did you decide, and what criteria did you apply? You see, I'm very curious about this. I knew that I was attracted to Paul McCartney and not Petula Clarke: there was no either/or. There was no choice, it simply *was.* This matches the experience of the gay folk with whom I have spoken.

    Thing the third: People are indeed born gay. There are numerous scholarly studies about the matter. If I put up all of the links here, the post will remain in moderation forever, so I'll share one particularly good one:

    (BTW, you do know that more than 1500 species of non-H. Sapiens animals exhibit homosexuality, right? Or are you going to argue that our closest genetic relatives, the bonobos, are "choosing" to be gay?)

    I'll have something to say about western culture in my next post, because it will require another link.


  • 182. fiona64  |  February 20, 2010 at 5:40 am

    Wingnut Proton wrote: Now stop trying to upset the balance of our western culture with your selfish demands.

    Oh, this is fascinating. You seem to be awfully confused about the history of marriage in Western civilization. Luckily for you, I can help:

    You see, marriage has not always been the way you think it's always been. At different times in western culture, same-sex marriage, polygamy, visiting spouses, etc., were all the order of the day.

    So, which part of "traditional marriage" *are* you protecting with this buffoonery, Proton? You haven't seen fit to answer my question yet, and this straight, married woman is dying to know.


  • 183. Ronnie  |  February 20, 2010 at 5:42 am

    So then the email that I got from Julia Rosen who wrks for this site is a lie?…..If i wanted to be in a Union then I would join a union…you dumb FU<K…you are the one coming onto this site and harassing me, which is against the law, you FU<KING PSYCHO!!!!!!!!………..again do you know me? can you read my mind? When did I choose to be Gay if you know me so well TRASH BAG!!!!!!!!?….My selfish demands….you are telling me, a person you don't even know, that I can't have something that already belongs to me as a human and in 8 states and 9 countries…..No thats not selfish, greedy, and spoiled at all….jump off a FU<KING cliff onto a rusty cross you GOD DAMN SOB POS SWATZY TRIPLE K TROLL….Do you think what you are doing right now by harassing me on this blog is making me happy?….No it's making me want to go to Livermore California and strangle you….If thats what making people happy is…then why isn't everybody on earth dead yet?….FU<K OFF TROLL HACKER!!!!!!!!!

  • 184. fiona64  |  February 20, 2010 at 5:52 am

    Ronnie, calm down.

    The guy is a loser who can't find a job and refers to himself as "babysitting" his own kids.

    He's not worth the angst.


  • 185. Ronnie  |  February 20, 2010 at 6:01 am

    Doesn't really matter what he is. I have spoken to the police and the FBI, my lawyer has gotten the name, address and phone number of this person. He or it clearly thinks that website that I posted is a is a joke….If he actually followed the link he would notice that I am not joking….well I hope he enjoys prison and gets raped by every man in there like the dog he is…….<3…Ronnie

  • 186. Nagatron-666!  |  February 20, 2010 at 6:06 am

    Po-ton 77

    I refute everything you say! Religions are fairy tales made up by fearful uneducated poor people to give them something to believe in other than reality. If you can not go with the flow then you will be anihilated!


  • 187. Ronnie  |  February 20, 2010 at 6:07 am

    This is the email I just received from the FBI Agent I spoke to on the phone and email….Julia this is not a joke:

    Thank you for filing a complaint with the Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3).

    Your complaint has been successfully submitted. Please retain the following
    information for future contacts with the IC3:

    Complaint Id: I******************2
    Password: v***********Y

    If you wish to view/download your complaint or have any additional information
    to provide to the IC3, please use the following link and login with the above
    complaint id and password.

    The IC3's mission is to serve as a vehicle to receive, develop, and refer
    criminal complaints regarding the rapidly expanding arena of cyber crime. The
    IC3 aims to give the victims of cyber crime a convenient and easy-to-use
    reporting mechanism.

  • 188. Nagatron-666!  |  February 20, 2010 at 6:08 am

    Po-me-ton 77,

    Gays bring in money and intelligence. I welcome them. I will do everything in my power to bring down marriage as a myth. It was invented for poor people who could not buy women and force the women to stay with the man especially when he was nasty abusive poor and stupid! Marriage is just more of the same Ciderella, Rapunzelle myth made up by fairytale mongers called preachers. By allowing gays to marry it exposes you for the loathsome unemployed uneducated terrified un-manly creep that you are.

    I don't care if gays marry but I do want people like you to feel threatened by your inadequacies!!! You are increasingly helpless and will be voted out of the gene pool if you do not evolve!!! Hahahahhahahaha!!!!!!

    Suck on that helpless weasel-man!!!!


  • 189. Nagatron-666!  |  February 20, 2010 at 6:14 am

    Po-whiny-ton 77,

    I don't care what you think is a civil right! I will still help gays get married regardless of civil unions. In fact I will sue the state to allow me to get CU so that it will be fair and equal…they will have to allow gays to marriage!!

    And I will keep shoving it in your face til you get that you are helpless and nothing special!!! your religion is a myth and your marriage is a fraud! You will end up divorced and pathetic. Sorry my whiny impotent minion….the future is here and it is crushing you!


  • 190. Ronnie  |  February 20, 2010 at 6:39 am

    And another FU<KING thing since you love this whole "freedom of speech" thing….as a tax paying American I have the freedom of speech to say in front of everyone alive, dead, and yet to be born…."I do take you, as a man myself, to be my lawfully wedded HUSBAND, I promise to LOVE, honor and obey until death do us part"… criminalizing marriage equality you and the rest of the HATEROsexual Bigots are taking away my "freedom of speech"

    PWND…..FU<K OFF Hatero Homohobe……<3…Ronnie

  • 191. Straight Dave  |  February 20, 2010 at 12:42 pm

    "Look man we just want to keep marriage between a man and a woman. You all filed the lawsuits were just trying raise our families."

    Do you appreciate that we're also just trying to raise our families?
    ( I know my LG+++ buddies will understand my presumptuous use of "we're" here. We are *all* in the same boat.)

    I have somehow missed all the apparent prior proton_77 flak, so I will approach this from a somewhat innocent and optimistic perspective.

    You have given a bit of a clue as to what your concern is, i.e., raising your family. I fully appreciate that, so I have a few questions.

    1) Could you explain exactly what is being done that prevents you from doing so?
    2) Further, do you have objections to the rest of our citizens raising their families under equal conditions and laws?
    3) Do you have objections to the universal promise of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"?
    4) Do you think it is possible to live and let live, where each family can operate as they chose and ignore what other families do that might suit them best?

    I anxiously await your responses.

  • 192. Norcal  |  February 21, 2010 at 3:08 am

    Their really isn't a proper resonse for people who live normally to your demands.

    We believe every facet of the gay emotional, sexual, and psychological mindset is wrong and sinful.

    I don't think we'll ever agree on whether being gay is right or wrong. I absolutely believe you should have life liberty and happiness, blah blah…..

    I don't understand how gay sex and daily living can produce legitimate peace or happiness. No disrespect.

    I totally understand how gay people want true peace. But man…how can you do that when you were born with sex organs designed for natural sex and procreation.

    Marrige equality I don't believe will give gay people a real sense of being, when what is it 90% of human beings are hetero.

    I hold Christian values that deem gay sex as a sin blah blah. I just believe marriage is not your table to sit at. Sorry

    we want you to be happy people, just happy without changing traditional marriage for your selfish needs to feel better.

    We want you to be happy.

  • 193. Ronnie  |  February 21, 2010 at 3:36 am

    well then I say…There really isn't a proper response for people who live life hating others and forcing them to live how you want them to live.

    We believe every facet of the Hatersexual, bible cherry picking, and ability to disrespect, murder, and bash LGBTQQIA Humans mindest is wrong and singul.

    I know we'll never agree on whether being Haterosexual is right or wrong. I abslolutely believe you should have liberty and the happiness, blah blah…….

    I don't understand how heterosexula sex and daily livong can produce legitimate peace and happiness….No disrespect.

    I totally understand how Haterosexual people want true peace, But Betch….how can you do that when not all heterosexual humans can or even want to procreate…and secondly what is natural to you is not natural to be or our heterosexual allies….tattoos aren't natural, adding highlights isn't natural, wearing clothes is not natural, having a C-section is not natural….enough said.

    Segration I do believe is against the law….For me marriage will give me as a Gay man a real sense of being…so stop talking for me…..especially when you are not a mind reader and do not know 90% of human beings and you can't speak for other people…some ego you got there.

    I hold freedom of speech, separation btw. church and state, and freedom of religion as more important over Christianity because I am not Christian…whats makes your religion more important then mine?..I pay taxes just like you, I have to eat, drink, sleep, dress, and survive just like you….I just believe that you have no right to tell me who I can and cannot marry because I am not a thing that you own….Marriage is not a table that you sit…last time I looked you can't sit at a word.

    We want you to be happy people, just happy without telling us how to live our lives for your selfish needs to feel better because you are controlling other peoples lives…Oh a marriage has been changed look in the dictonary the 8 states and 9 countires that have changed it…sorry boo boo…PWND

    You clearly do not want us to be happy, because you are telling us how to live, who to love, what we can and cannot do…..

    We want you to be happy….but how can we make you happy if you are clearly making us unhappy…you don't believe that we are unhappy because you are ignoring that over 2 million people across this country are telling you WE ARE NOT HAPPY!!!!!!!!!

    Oh and I just love have you answered for that 77 trash bag repeating all the words that that thing already posted…unless…do I have to say…Hi Hatero #77…


  • 194. fiona64  |  February 21, 2010 at 4:23 am

    Dear Norcal:

    I wonder why you believe that our LGBT fellow citizens do not have a place at the table. I ask this as a straight, married woman.

    You do understand that marriage does not require procreation, right? And that every single act that anti-equality folks focus on as being "gay sex" is also done by straight couples, right?

    What do you mean by "live normally"? That's a serious question. You see, my gay friends also "live normally." Their lifestyle differs from mine not one whit. We all get up in the morning, perform our ablutions, go to a job we may or may not love, some of us pick kids up from school (gay or straight, some families have kids) and help with homework, make supper, go to bed, and get up and do it again the next day.

    It amazes me that you cannot see the parallels between what you are saying to LGBT people and what was said to people of different ethnicities not even a generation ago.

    "We want you to be happy, but marriage to a person of a different ethnicity is not your table to sit at. Sorry."

    "We want you to be happy, but sitting toward the front of the bus is not your table to sit at. Sorry."

    "We want you to be happy, but drinking from this water fountain is not your table to sit at. Sorry."

    "We want you to be happy, but wearing clothes without yellow stars on them is not your table to sit at. Sorry."


  • 195. Joe  |  February 21, 2010 at 8:41 am

    I found this so incredibly refreshing. I actually grew up in a conservative part of the states (rural Minnesota). My mother was rather liberal, my father quite conservative, and indeed, my brother turned about to the left of the left, my sister on the very right. Me? I was always taught to think for myself, but while I consider myself a fiscal conservative, I have yet ever to vote for a Republican because I am gay, and almost without fail Republicans have been vehemently opposed to gay rights, and many have been extremely hostile to them. And I think a third party that is fiscally conservative and socially liberal would beat any Democrat or Republican hands down, because the vast majority of Americans find themselves in that category, but neither party speaks to them.

    The other reason this is refreshing was to sit Andrew and Maggie down at the table, and while the two are obviously so far at the ends of the table (figurative, not just literally), to see Mr. Herbert as a possible solution between the two. One of my biggest takeaways from this was that the British Conservative Party saw that unless they are representative of the people, they are not fit to represent the people. With that, they sought to be inclusive of women, inclusive of minorities, and that includes being inclusive of GLBT folk. To that end they sought to find a common ground and that is most likely the greatest reason for their success.

    Maggie voices her opposition as merely that the since gay rights are a move to liberalism that is the reason to oppose it. What she misses out on, and loses from the British Conservatives success, is that unless you find a way to represent everyone, you lose relevance and will always be a minority. For example, if she said if she was fine with any kind of same sex union if people were allowed a religious exemption, that might be one thing. (I know, obviously she's against any form of same sex union give NOM's vehement opposition to Washington state's DP law.) But she's against it just because it might lead to that. If she was lobbying for a version with a religious exemption that would be different. That is the difference between the British Conservative Party and American conservatives such as Maggie.

    I guess the lesson is that as Evan Bayh said, if you're in it as an all or nothing, don't be surprised when you end up with nothing.

  • 196. Straight Dave  |  February 21, 2010 at 1:31 pm

    Thanks for having my back Ronnie and Fiona. Team mates forever.

    Norcal, it's time to call a spade a spade. You just don't want them in your exclusive club because then you would have to accept that people whom you apparently consider inferior are, in fact, every bit your equal.

    That is the unfortunate part of your religion, one that was set up to promote peace, decency, and humanity. Instead, it seems to have evolved to the point of acting negatively toward those who don't fit the official mold of uniformity. It has become just another snooty club. Jesus would be appalled.

    That is why I abandoned the church years ago.

  • 197. Ronnie  |  February 21, 2010 at 1:37 pm

    You're welcome Dave….no problem…any time…BBTMFF ( Bestess Best Team Mates Friends Forever)……<3…Ronnie

  • 198. Richard Walter (soon  |  February 21, 2010 at 2:08 pm

    YOu are so full of it that when you look in the mirror even the whites of your eyes are brown. If you think there is something different about the gay lifestyle" then let me elaborate on the "gay lifestyle" as it is lived in my house.
    Wake up
    Brush teeth
    Comb hair (at least what is left of it)
    shave to keep beard looking neat and professional
    take 85 year old mother in law to her job on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday
    go to whatever location(s) I have on my assignment sheet for whichever day of the week it is
    make sure my dogs are fed, watered and are able to get out into the yard to play and take care of their ablutions as needed
    go to the grocery store
    stop by WalMart to pick up what we need fo the house or for my mother-in-law, that we cannot get at the grocery store
    pick mother-in-law up from work
    take mother-in-law to wherever else she needs to go–wellness appointments at her doctor's office, open air market, Hobby Lobby, Michaels, A. C. Moore, Staples, Office Max, Big Lots, Ollie's Sam's
    have dinner with mother-in-law to make sure she eats and is not lonely
    clean up the dishes
    work in the yard on days when mother-in-law is not working and when we are als not working
    try to keep up with local news
    coordinate campaign for local town council so that needed work in our community, such as roads, safety, neighborhood watch teams, etc. can be even more effective
    talk with adult stepchildren to see how they are doing
    get ready for bed
    Get up and do it all over again
    change windshield wipers on car
    change oil in car
    discuss Stanley Home Products with pontential clients
    take orders for Stanley Home Products from clients
    place orders through corporate website
    accept delivery of orders
    deliver customer orders
    Now, how is that any different from your life?

  • 199. Felyx  |  February 21, 2010 at 2:21 pm

    Damn Richard!!! Hardly worth being gay with all that to do!!!

    My G-d! It is becoming clear to me now….hateros are really just hating all the sex we are having in their heads!!! If you were getting just half as much as they thought you were getting…..well no wonder you hardly have any hair left!!!!

    Reality-Bites! Hehehehe <3 Felyx

  • 200. Richard Walter (soon  |  February 21, 2010 at 2:46 pm

    Yes, it does, Felyx. Oh, BTW, Rabbi said to let you know that you have done it again! I showed him your response to my last post on this thread, and am just now able to type in our response to you because we started laughing so hard at the way you put it! I just hope that I got that on here while the individual it was intended for could see it. Or has this latest troll also been banned?

  • 201. Felyx  |  February 21, 2010 at 2:51 pm


    I like to bring happiness through humor. Well done sarcasm goes oh so far! Thankyou for making my day!<3Felyx Maybe one day stand up comedian

  • 202. Sen. Roy Ashburn’s &hellip  |  July 23, 2010 at 6:11 am

    […] While I praise traditionally conservative parties for taking an enlightened stance on LGBT issues (such as the British Tories), that’s not what this is […]

Having technical problems? Visit our support page to report an issue!