It's not always about being funny.

I’m looking for a few bad Republicans

Should a gay couple be allowed the same rights as a straight married couple?
Should a gay couple be allowed to marry?

If you would, in any way, answer no to either of these questions, I’d like you to explain your rationale. Why do you feel this way? I’m asking honestly – I need to know what train of thought leads to voting to ban the rights of anyone. I need to understand it, because without any type of rational explanation from someone who actually feels that way, all I can think is that we are a hateful, prejudicial nation that has turned its back on the reason it was created in the first place.

So, if you say no to those two questions, please, tell me why.

Share the love:
RSS
Follow by Email
Google+
Google+
http://www.avitable.com/2008/11/06/im-looking-for-a-few-bad-republicans/
YouTube
Pinterest
LinkedIn
Instagram
snapchat
whatsapp

97 Replies to “I’m looking for a few bad Republicans”

  1. B.E. Earl

    Oh man, these are definitely questions for that crazy lady that was haunting Britt’s blog and your blog a few months ago talking shit. Right up her alley.

    As for me and mine…we just can’t believe that Prop 8 passed in CA. An extremely dark shadow on an otherwise bright day in our nation’s history.

  2. Mary

    Yes and yes to your questions.

    I am an Irish Catholic conservative, but,I have to draw the line between my religous beliefs and the legal rights of the rest of the human race.

  3. Robin

    It’s total bullshit. Total bullshit. How can we as a country take 100 steps forward, yet certain states step 200 steps backwards? We can’t do one monumental thing and then not come through with another…..it’s pretty hypocritical.

  4. Solanaceae

    I can give you their reason, I grew up hearing the reason(s) … keep in mind I don’t agree with them so please no hate mail.

    It boils down to what they call morality (but is really just religion cloaked in smugness) for most Republicans, they might tell you differently in public but in private they will tell you that homosexuality is a sin (or that it is unnatural & therefore against God). They do not see homosexuals as a class of people who deserve to be treated like everyone else, they see them as people with a sickness that need to be cured.

    They use their religion to justify their hate. Sounds pretty messed up but I lived under the oppression of the religious right when I was a kid and can tell you that very little of what they do, say and believe makes sense to people who use common sense.

  5. Amber

    I’ll admit it: I’m a proud, Christian, Conservative — even if I don’t really talk about politics all that much on my own blog.

    BUT.

    I do believe gay people should have the same rights and be allowed to marry if they so choose. It breaks my heart to think of someone’s lifelong partner not being able to make choices for their loved one should something happen that they are unable to do so for themselves. Or being booted out of their homes by their partner’s “family” and they have no legal right to any of their things, their home, etc.

    This is one issue I don’t stand with my “party” on and I would vote for gay rights/marriage every time.

    Unfortunately, it hasn’t come up in Colorado and was not on our ballots this year.

    As to your question? If you want some answers that *are* logical, whether we agree with them or not, Frank Turek of CrossExamined.org has given the most compelling arguments as to why we should not allow those two things to happen.

    I looked at his website to try and find a link, but I couldn’t. It’s on his show “I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be An Atheist.” And yes, he actually does keep faith out of his arguments. The “because the Bible says so” argument isn’t one that he uses.

    He doesn’t, and hasn’t, changed my mind about it… but if insight is what you’re looking for… that would be the only one I could think of that would give you some kind of valid answers.

    And by valid… I mean “real” reasons behind not voting for gay rights. Not just because you’re an asshole bigot!

    I have a lot of gay friends and my heart is broken for them, too. So just because I’ve listened to the “other” side of the argument, don’t assume that *I* am a bigot. I WOULD vote for gay rights – every time. That’s just for clarification.

    I may be a Christian and all… but that doesn’t mean I’m perfect. It doesn’t mean I’m a hater. It doesn’t automatically lump you in with other Christians who *claim* to be that way, but forget the number one rule about loving people…

    Just my two cents.

  6. Allyson

    I have to say, I have debated with people on this matter, and I either found those people to be ignorant haters with no brain behind the mouth, or so impersonal, that I got depressed talking to them.

    I don’t undersand it either.

    I overheard somebody talking about the marriage deal, and they said something to the effect of “marriage” being a contract with the child the two people gave life to, and that that wouldn’t be possible between two people of the same sex. I don’t know if that’s true. I don’t care. I don’t think that’s what marriage is today, so I don’t think it’s a valid point, anyway.

  7. Amanda

    I think most people who voted in favor of including hatred and bigotry into their constitution did so because of religious reasons. However, I really have trouble believing Jesus would have discriminated against anyone for something as inoffensive as love. He’s the one who taught to love everyone, even the lepers and the blind. I highly doubt he’d be a big fan of discrimination in any form.

    I think there’s some sort of opposite Bradley effect with this- No one ever owns up to voting for this and yet clearly lots of people are fans of bigotry. It’s odd. If you’re embarrassed to admit to it, clearly you’re choosing wrong.

  8. whall

    I’m even more interested to think why anyone who would take you up on the offer is likely to be reading a blog such as yours. If they can stomach your self-proclaimed tactlessness, confidence is high that they don’t have a problem with gay marriage.

    That’s akin going to a KKK rally and then publically asking “ok, so who’s willing to come up here to the podium and give us a couple good, honest reasons for why blacks should be able to vote.”

  9. Ren

    I’m saddened by California’s choice on this issue and very concerned that it will lead to many other states jumping on the bandwagon.

    However, I have no difficulty understanding *why* people would answer “no” to those questions: they simply believe that homosexuality is morally wrong and cannot be encouraged. I have more trouble understanding the argument that civil unions should be allowed but not marriages.

    I’m afraid that they only path forward from this point is going to be time — and probably a lot of it. The fact that African Americans supported Prop 8 by an even larger margin (7/10) than self-described Christians (2/3) does make me wonder if there is another factor, though I suppose that could simply be explained by non-Christian religion.

  10. Angie

    Technically, marriage is not a “right” but a social construct that over time began to be legislated on the local level (most likely as a way to generate income), not mentioned per se anywhere in the US Constitution….

    Likewise, “judicial review” (that process by which SCOTUS may strike down all or part of a law or reaffirm a law) is not specifically addressed in the Constitution.

    Applying historical context, one could easily argue that marriage (whether it be homo- or heterosexual) is a contract, stripped of all religious meaning and presented as strictly a secular matter (the privileges and immunities clause of the 14th Amendment DOES protect the RIGHT to enter into contracts based upon the parties’ own terms); in which case, it is now a civil matter and, therefore, a CIVIL UNION.

    The foundations of marriage have shifted back and forth over the centuries, from business transaction to religious Covenant. As long as no standard is applied (secular vs. religious vs. other), there will continue to be a battle. From an “individual” point of view, to me, it is yet another issue (like abortion) with no business being legislated: It is between those making the choice, no one else has any business in it, the people butting in are not the ones who have to live with the consequences, so they need to BUTT OUT. I live in a great fantasy world, don’t I?

    I cannot help but ask, though, on the tail of your question, why is gay marriage morally or socially okay…. but polygamy is not? (As became apparent in the case of the FLDS ranch invasion, many screaming for heads and raging that those people have no right to children simply because they practiced polygamy – no weight given to whether the “bride” was 14 or 40, just because that’s “sick” to be married to more than one person. Is it really all that different, AT THE CORE, than any other marriage issue or argument? Don’t get me wrong, I am not condoning what appears to have been going on there; if an old dude is sticking his pecker in a 12-year-old girl, he needs a lot worse than taking his kids away and putting him in jail…. I’m just saying, on the marriage side of it, ya know?)

    I’m the last person anyone would want sitting on the SCOTUS. I need to pick shit apart, argue both sides of the issue, and in the end still not make up my mind. Then again, it’s not MY life and it’s not MY decision, so why should I have to?

  11. Fogspinner

    I’m still in shock and I live in the damn state that banned it. All I can say is that my county voted NO on 8. Amazingly so because we’re as backwood and redneck as they come around here, and yet we could figure out that this was about equality not morality.

    Southern CA are a bunch of fuckwads.

  12. jester

    If you get a single logical answer that doesn’t invoke the “word of God” or some other rhetoric based on a religious text I will blow you on video. That is to say, it won’t happen.

    There is no reasoning outside of some misguided religious belief.

    My heart is absolutely broken. I am disillusioned and outraged.

    The Yes on 8 campaign in California could not sway enough voters by relying merely on their religious morality arguments… instead, they lied and confused voters into believing that Proposition 8 had something to do with teaching gay marriage to first graders.

    I have heard about the lawsuit being filed that proves the proposition should have never gone to voters without first being reviewed by legislature. It seems promising. I remain hopeful that the same Supreme Court that declared it unconstitutional to keep gays from marriage will see the unconstituitionality of this latest amendment.

  13. Blondefabulous

    I want to know too! I was so frickin disappointed when our state voted to take rights away from people. WTF? I guess we are progressive enough to elect an African-American president, but not progressive enough to allow everyone the right to marry the one they love,

    Fucktards! :crazywife:

  14. kapgar

    It’s such a mixed up time emotionally. Part of me wants to be cautiously happy and hopeful and then you read news of the propositions in California, Arkansas, Arizona, and Florida, and you just want to weep.

    Sorry, I’m neither Republican nor do I feel that gays should not have the same rights. Nor does Katie.

  15. RW

    Should the country that celebrates life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness allow discrimination for a group of Americans based on sexual preference?

    It is funny to me how the religious right has taken conservatism away from conservatives. I have no use for the neocons. But notice how they are storming all up and down their blogs about how Obama is going to take away their rights, but they are first in line to deny others theirs.

    The Republican Party is full of fucking duplicitous morons. Bring back Barry Goldwater!

  16. SciFi Dad

    I agree with others who have mentioned religion being the primary reason.

    What I want is for someone to explain the difference between amendment and revision (the basis of the ACLU argument) because they both sound like “change” to me.

  17. RW

    Angie makes a couple interesting points up there but if gay marriage isn’t a “right” but a social construct then the government may not have jurisdiction over it and it is possible, then, that no law could be applied to it. A social construct doesn’t need to be a law. To open or not to open a door for someone is a social construct. Should a government have the authority to legislate it?

    As to the comparison of gay marriage to polygamy the issue is coercion and the potential for it. What people have to remember is that in the recent polygamist communities in controversy right now – and through history – people (women) were told this is their fate and their duty. The coercion isn’t that the state is saying “you may not” for the sake of saying you may not – the coercion is a community that enforces the construct in the first place. It’s complicated, but you have to try to differentiate, especially when – in the case of polygamist communities – you may have an insulated community that controls the education of people who are told this is the only way it is done.

    When people talk about tradition and such, however, they enter into the realm of the logical fallacy. Argumentum ad populum. Kind of a minefield.

    If there is no coercion involved, it is logical to wonder why polygamy ought to be against the law. The state may have no right to determine whether or not polygamy should be “legal” or not. That’s what people are trying to decide. However – to bunch gay marriage and polygamy randomly is also a logical fallacy. No matter where you go the issue seems to always end up being consent and coercion rather than the specific act.

    That’s the only real basis, as I can see, why government should get involved in something.

  18. roger

    its really simple, gay couples do not procreate at the same rate as straight couples. there for if the population is not growing, your church is not growing and the donations start to dwindle.

  19. radioactivegirltori

    I can’t help you here because I feel that any two consenting adults that want to get married should have the same rights as any man/woman “traditional” couple does. If we allow some people to legally join, I can’t understand why some people are excluded. I feel the same as you do that I just can’t even understand why this would be a problem to anyone.

  20. Janelle

    Adam, I have no yet read your post today. BUT had to quickly comment, there are just now letting us download Firefox at work and guess what, using Firefox, YOU AREN’T BLOCKED! Awesome! So, ya, gonna go read your post now… I may comment again. If not, just know I got bust at work.

  21. NYCWD

    Your question is a bit ambiguous… so I’m going to alter the question for specificity…

    In legislature should a homosexual couple be provided the same rights and benefits as a heterosexual couple?
    In legislature should a homosexual couple be allowed to marry?

    To those questions I answer Yes and No.

    I answer yes, because doing so provides equality and there is this little document that we place our values in that says, “…all men are created equal…” and therefore not doing so place the authenticity of that statement in question, and therefore our value system.

    I answer no to the second question because I do not believes that legislature should allow homosexuals to marry, but I also believe that legislature should allow heterosexuals to marry either. Marriage is not a “social construct” as someone else mentioned, but marriage is actually a legal religious contract. It’s legal significance can be found in various secular law texts, which for the majority of the history of man was the law that would rule a region. These secular laws also determined dowrys, anullements, and the “role” of the person entering into the contract… as well as the penalties for breaking the contract.

    However, since one of the other principals this country was founded on is the separation of church and state, then secular law and the terms it uses should have no place in governmental legislation. The truth is that the secular law of the majority of the Founding Fathers found its way in to the legislation for no other reason than the current (at the time) foundation in which the cultures of the people had been based upon. God save the King and all that.

    True separation of church and state in this country is a mythical ideal at this point, and therefore until these secular terms are removed from legislature entirely then the religious will act to preserve their internal laws which have been in existence since long before this continent was even discovered.

    The decisions in both California and Florida, two states that voted for the first African American President, to ban gay marriage proves that change has not happened (hence my complete annoyance at the blogger liberati proclamations everywhere about that) other than that being homosexual is the new black.

  22. Carolina

    I was told yesterday by someone very close to me that they voted yes because of her deep reflection on her [Christian] wedding vows. That because of them, she felt no gay couple could truly understand the meaning behind the vows that a man and woman share (yes, I dropped my jaw when I heard that). HOWEVER she did agree that an all out ban was drastic, but still felt the need to vote yes.
    Why she voted Obama and voted yes on FL #2, I do not know.
    Clown knows how bothered I am about this person in my life.

  23. NYCWD

    Edit:

    I answer no to the second question because I do not believes that legislature should allow homosexuals to marry, but I also believe that legislature should not allow heterosexuals to marry either.

    I really should proofread before hitting submit.

    Duh.

  24. Finn

    Marriage is a legal contract. I know this because I had to get a license for it, and I paid a fee. I do not have to be married in a religious ceremony; in fact, I can be married five seconds after getting the license, right there in the back room.

    I can see no legal argument against gay marriage, only a religious one. And we have separation of church and state. Don’t we?

  25. Janelle

    Okey dokey, I can see by the length of the other comments, you have asked two great questions.
    I will try to keep my comment brief.

    I am a republican. I am a Christian. HOWEVER, to “ban the rights” of anyone contradicts my Christian upbringing, in my mind anyway.

    I hear EVERY Sunday and/or Wednesday when I go to church (ya know, don’t want to overload myself on faith), “God made EVERYTHING” I 100% agree with that, I mean I know stuff is man-made, but in general, God did make everything. Again, my opinion. I also believe in the Big Bang… Hello! God created the Big Bang. Ok, getting off topic and somewhere I probably shouldn’t go…

    Back to your questions,
    Church also tells me that “we are living in the end of times.”

    So, taking what THE CHURCH tells me, God made everything, we are living in the end of times.
    The bible says that in the end of days “man will lay with man” … hello! God made gay people! The Bible Tells Me So!

    Would Jesus really want us banning the rights of others because of how they love?

    Ok, I could go on and on, but I will stop here.

    So, in short, to answer your questions, no. Nobody’s rights to marry another should be banned. But what do I know?

  26. Scout's Honor

    Sigh. Not me. I’m a good witch…errr…Republican.

    Prop 8 passing made me want to vomit. I just had a couple friends get married there and now I guess their marriages never were?

    So those bad Republicans you’re asking about? That’s my almost entire farking family. They’re Mormon and the top of the church told them they needed to have 30 people from each ward work on the election 4 hours weekly. Imagine that manpower harnessed. I had my non-political older sister who had my Dad fill out her ballot book until she was 25 (now her husband) try to challenge me on prop. 8. I shut her down mainly because, honey, I live in Washington, not California. She didn’t seem sure it wasn’t a national vote.

    Gah!

    Then there’s my mother who brought it up. My one brother-in-law who was canvassing neighborhoods putting yes prop 8 door hangers on the door with his 15 year old son. There there was another brother-in-law who tricked out his Facebook with prop. 8 avatars and pics. My baby sister who’s status on Facebook said she joined the yes on prop 8 coalition.

    At it’s most elemental, they believe their rights are being attacked. They believed if they didn’t resist, they would have law suits forcing them to marry homosexuals in their temples or face discrimination law suits and loss of their non-profit status.

    Yes, yes, this sounds like fear mongering. No way it would happen right? Make a US bishop marry two lesbians in his cathedral? Have two gay men marry in their temple? Then it spreading to classrooms…

    Honestly, I told them they were full of shit and then I read this NPR:

    When Gay Rights and Religious Liberties Clash
    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91486191

    NPR is pretty reputable. I see their point. They kinda were right. They can be sued and forced to go against their religious beliefs. Gay rights shouldn’t trump any religious rights (no matter how you or I view those repugnant freedoms). Can’t they coexist?

    Then, I said wait a minute. If it’s about not getting sued and their rights, why didn’t they delineate their religious rights and protect their rights in prop 8 instead of trying to take away someone else’s rights in the form of outright banning gay marriage?

    Then, still thinking, really, much less then half of the American populace is even religious, but they get quite a tax benefit for church contributions. Maybe churches and church members, who arguably get a benefit from their donations, should not get a tax benefit as well. Besides, we all know churches are industries with their large corporate offices, huge real estate holdings, etc.

    Think of those billions of tax dollars for our economy. No think of all those churches no longer being forced to bend to discrimination laws. Then think of all those gay couples being allowed to marry and pursue happiness like us all.

    Win. win. Win.

    Okay, now that I’ve written a post on your comments, I think I’ll post this at my blog too. If you haven’t heard from me in a few days, come see if I’ve been stabbed in the heart with a cross, eh?

  27. hello haha narf

    love is love. two people should be able to love and receive the same damn rights & advantages as any other couple. no reason they can’t be acknowledged as legally joined.

    i should say something about my single self not getting the same tax deductions for not being married and not reproducing, but i will shut it for now.

    looking forward to having more time to read the comments. will be back…

  28. Scout's Honor

    oh, and one more thing, I think it’s stinky fingers are being pointed at Republicans.

    Have you seen the exit polls? Look at the percentage of black Californians that voted yes. The people who have arguably been most discriminated against in a year where we voted in a black president, voted to discriminate against gays.

    SF Chronicle

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/05/MNH413UTUS.DTL :

    “While Obama publicly backed the “No on Prop. 8″ effort, African American voters had no trouble voting overwhelmingly for the man who will be the nation’s first black president and then voting 70 percent in favor of Prop. 8.”

    And Catholics?

    “59 percent of Catholics backed Democratic President-elect Barack Obama, they turned around and voted for Prop. 8 by 64 percent.”

    A CNN poll I found also said 51% of Latin men voted yes as well.

    See Democrats can and are bigots too. There aren’t that many Republicans, much less black or Catholic or Latin Republicans in California. I should know. I used to be one of the few Republicans period in California.

    So, let’s call a bigot a bigot and not blame a political party.

    Oh, and Obama? While he was against prop 8 (although he said little during the campaign), check out this quote from Lesbian Life:

    http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/lesbianactivism/p/BarackObama.htm

    Barack Obama and Gay Marriage/ Civil Unions:
    Although Barack Obama has said that he supports civil unions, he is against gay marriage. In an interview with the Chicago Daily Tribune, Obama said, “I’m a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman.”

    Just saying…

  29. RW

    “So, let’s call a bigot a bigot and not blame a political party.”

    Scout’s Honor – Let’s point the finger to those who have made it the official platform of their organization.

    My criticism of the Republican Party exists because it has strayed away from its basic tenets and embraced big-government internally, interventionism globally, and panders to the religious right politically. If we can return to small-government, non-interventionism and eliminate the influence on the GOP coming from religious exceptionalists I’ll be happy to rethink my premise. But what happened to the old party’s stance of getting the government out of our lives?

    The official position of the new Republican Party opposes gay marriage. They are at the forefront of this issue. They carry the banner.

    Let’s call a bigot a bigot indeed.

  30. Evil Genius

    I’ll be the first to admit that for most of my life I have either been a Republican or had strong Republican leanings…however I still answer “yes” to both of your questions.

    My heart goes out to all who fought so hard against Proposition 8 only to see it pass. I really thought the country had taken some huge steps toward tolerance, but obviously that is not the case.

  31. Dave2

    If the heterosexually-challenged get to start marrying each other, then traditional marriage between one man and one woman won’t mean anything! The divorce rate will skyrocket! People will start marrying each other not for love, but for status, money, power, and convenience! Since gay marriage mocks religion, atheists will be able to get married in a non-religious ceremony by the justice of the peace! Marriage will be fucked!

    Oh… wait a second… all of that shit IS ALREADY HAPPENING!

    It is astoundingly fucked-up that tax-paying citizens will now be discriminated against LEGALLY because of who they are. I can’t believe how the non-stop lies propagated by the “Yes on 8” brigade were embraced so readily. Welcome to America.

  32. Sybil Law

    It’s unfathomable to me why people are so SCARED of the thought of people of the same sex being allowed to marry. Christians have the duty of being “Christ – like”, and that would include loving all people and turning the other cheek. It also means not to judge. If they think they will be judged in Heaven, and that everyone will be, then what do they care what the laws of man will allow or not allow, on something that really doesn’t affect them either way?
    I really don’t get people. I hope someone will come here and enlighten us.

  33. Scout's Honor

    RW: Ckeck out my blog. You’re preaching to the choir. I am all for the religious right getting the fuck out of my party and I’ve blogged about it too many times to count. That said, this issue can not just be put on Republicans.

    I know Democrats hate to do some belly-button gazing, but Obama, as the president elect and arguably the head of the Democratic party, is AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE. Hmmm…

    How about the Democratic SENATE MAJORITY leader Harry Reid who is vocal is his opposition to gay marriage and did vote FOR the Defense of MArriage Act.

    DEM-O-CRATs can and ARE bigots too. Again, this bigotry graces both sides of the aisle.

  34. Robin

    I can’t answer this since I’m for everyone having the same rights and I also don’t beleive any of us should have a say in how others live their lives. I do however think the concept of marriage is kinda crap, this coming from a newly married woman. It’s the committment that matters, not the piece of paper. I only decided to do it for the legal rights, I want to be considered his family and sadly I cannot do that unless we are legally married. But I mean, if others want to be married for whatever reason, who am I to say?

  35. Tasses

    Avitable,

    I am being lazy today so perhaps this point has already been made higher in your comment list BUT…..

    As a lifelong registered Republican, I am AGAINST any form of legislation that LIMITS rights. I voted against the gay marriage ban 2 days ago and I voted against the smoking ban a few years back (even though I abhor smoke). The Democrats are the ones who sent this ban to our state legislature. PERIOD. They ignored that when they turned out the African-American vote, they would also be turning out the heavy Southern Baptist/Christian vote. Many of my black friends voted to ban gay marriage due to their deep Christian faith. Add their votes to the McCain religious voters along with the Hispanic/Catholics that went Democrat this time and you have the ban.

    I love reading your stuff and have enjoyed all your blog friends pictures of the fair, but I find the stereotype that being a Republican means one is an uneducated religious zealot insulting. Remember… Republicanism was FOUNDED ON INDIVIDUAL FREEDOMS. They USED to be the party of equality while the Democrats were the southern states stronghold of divisive politics. If any of your readers don’t understand this, they need to do some research on the parties foundings…

    I am from the land of Lincoln (which went Dem this time). As kids, we were ingrained with the Lincoln Republican doctrine (fiscal conservative/social liberal). I have been at odds with Neo-Republicanism since it embraced the religious right and have SERIOUSLY considered registering Libertarian. I sooooo wish we had a VIABLE 3rd party in this country. I was very close to bubbling the Libertarian candidate Tuesday.

    I wish Senator Obama the very best of luck and truly HOPE his words were not those of just another career politician making promises. His speech making and charisma are without equal. But, then again, we also have the media/masses worship of the Paris Hiltons….

  36. RW

    I’m no Democrat, scouts, but when that party puts it on their masthead like the GOP has, you’ll have an argument. Otherwise you’re comparing a group of individuals to an official position. That the view has calcified into a concrete position in the GOP makes them the standard-bearer. That’s institutionalized bigotry; which is far worse than the petty, pandering, expedient kind the Democrats have.

  37. Faiqa

    RE: “Obama…is AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE..Hmm”

    Hmm, indeed. Opposition to the inclusion of marriage legislation in the Constitution doesn’t equate to being against gay marriages. It seems like a fine point open to easy dismissal, but it is a crucial difference.

  38. A Whole Lot of Nothing

    The church has no right to limit rights given in the Constitution.

    Marriage can be both a legal recognition of property and rights to the other person, and, if so chosen, a recognition by the couple’s religion as a spiritual union. By putting into the Constitution the ‘moral’ restrictions represented by some citizens, they limit the rights so given in the underlying theme of the Constitution.

    I, too, would like to hear a non-religious reason for Prop 2 (FL) and Prop 8 (CA) and the other limiting props in other states.

    P.S. I sound too smart in this comment not to steal from myself to post elsewhere.

  39. Avitable

    I received the following comment via email:

    Just thought I would respond to your post on your honest questions about us bad republicans over here in California. I didn’t want to say anything on your blog because really, who wants hate mail and tomatoes thrown in their face? Nobody wants to pick red mush out of their nose.

    Anyway, my two cents is this…… To your first question. YES I believe that gay couples should have the same humanistic rights as the rest of us legally. That should never be under scrutiny. It breaks my heart to think that couples in love and who have vowed to each other to be each other’s life partner, can not be the person in charge of their loved one during a medical emergency.

    I’m a God fearing, love thy neighbor above all else sort of Christian. One of my best friends is a lesbian and I was one of two bridesmaids in her Jewish wedding the fall of ’07, and she was one of my bridesmaids in the summer of ’07. Not many Christians I know would ever stretch their faith in that way. Not to say that I’m some sort of saint, but it is to say that I have a distinctly unique viewpoint on this subject.

    However, I do believe that marriage is a contract, not only between a man and woman, but between a man, a woman and the Lord. You can’t even get married without some sort of religious person sanctifying the union. Even those off the internet have to be “ordained”, which I think is absolutely ridiculous, but that’s a whole ‘nother issue all together.

    Because the union of marriage has always been seen as this, since the dawn of time , not just by me or my fellow conservative Californians, but by many cultures around the world from civilization to civilization, this is the sole reason that I can not under good conscience vote No for prop 8.

    And no, I do not believe that every gay person will go to hell. Not at all. Do I believe that they are living in sin? Yes, unfortunately I do believe that. However, aren’t we ALL living in sin? Don’t we ALL have something to repent for??? I know I surely do.

    We are ALL loved by God.

    But that isn’t the only reason I voted yes on Prop 8. There were other things to consider. It would be hugely expensive to change damn near everything to include not only Jack and Jill, but Jack and Jack and Jill and Jill into every.single.book and information giving tool. But more importantly, as they have already done in Mass. where gay marriage is legal, they are denying the rights of parents the option of informing their children about homosexual issues. For goodness sake, you have to have a parents permission to hear about puberty in 5th grade. Some parents have even been arrested because they wanted to be notified of their KINDERGARTNERS learning about the above their maturity issue of homosexuals. Not to say that all children don’t need to learn about these things that are in our world, because obviously they need some sort of understanding, but my gosh that’s a bit extreme.

    Ok, enough of my ramblings. Stepping off the soap box. This email is way longer than I intended it to be.

    Hope it helped you understand our side a bit better. Please don’t throw tomatoes or other rotten fruit. I’m a germ-a-phobe. LOL.

    Mrs. Kitty
    http://www.kittyconcerto.com

  40. RW

    With all due respect to Mrs. Kitty, the Jack and Jack analogy and the interpretation of laws in Massachusetts are not the issue. Those are separate concerns and totally unrelated issues.

    But the key element stated in her email was that she holds that a marriage contract is an exception because the contract contains God as one of the participants.

    In the first place MrsRW and I were married by a judge and no church or religious entity had to be involved. Secondly what do we do with people who don’t see the Lord as one of the principles in that contract? Thirdly I don’t think enforcing a contract that includes a deal with God oversteps the establishment clause.

  41. Scout's Honor

    Okay, RW, for argument’s sake let’s say I WILL CONCEDE that the Republican religious right elites made anti-gay marriage positions as “their masthead” and let’s say I ALSO AGREE TO YOUR PREMISE that we ignore the “petty, pandering, expedient kind the Democrats have” such as PRESIDENT ELECT BARACK OBAMA and SENATE MAJORITY LEADER HARRY REID, then who is to blame?

    A small bunch of elitist, religious members of the Republican party who have little voice in California politics or the millions and millions of DEMOCRATS that actually voted for Prop. 8?

    So we discount the hatred in those wee Democratic hearts? Sigh.

    All I am trying to say is the blame goes both ways.

    What’s worse? The “institutionalized bigotry?” Or the silent bigotry in the hearts of many so-called liberals that voted in those booths to take away a human being’s fundamental right? Bradley effect much?

    The in-your-face bigotry or the silent-insidious-hypocritical bigotry? I would rather know my enemy than not realize who they really are? I would rather know that a friend/champion like Obama will bring change and hope in one breath and have that very same bigotry that “a marriage is between one man and one woman” is his heart.

    Yes, Faiga, it’s semantics. Whether he supports a constitutional ban, the bigotry is in his heart nonetheless.

  42. RW

    which of course should read “I DO think enforcing a contract that includes a deal with God oversteps the establishment clause.”

    Your editing thing doesn’t work and/or I am an idiot.

  43. RW

    scouts, it would be easier to deal with the insidious kind of bigotry if they didn’t have an open institution serving to galvanize their secret hatred.

    No one is discounting the hidden hate of non-Republicans, and I admit that my bitterness and outright anger toward the GOP is born out of my personal frustration over the way they’ve gone off the tracks – and left me – but when an institution carries the banner of an idea it facilitates the justification of it in the minds of people who may hold the view furtively.

  44. Finn

    Miss Kitty:

    I was married by a Notary Public. She was NOT ordained. The State of Florida required that I say certain words in order to make it official. They also required that I purchase a license and have it filed.

    I could have gotten married ten times in ten different churches, but without that piece of paper, I would have no rights as a spouse.

    We’re talking about legal rights here — marriage affords, what, about 1,000 different ones where a “civil union” grants only a handful. The spiritual part can’t be legislated. It can’t be given and it can’t be taken away.

    Equality means equality for all. Let’s keep in mind that we can take rights away from one group, we can take them away for any group. Will yours be next? Will mine?

  45. NYCWD

    Finn– If you were not “married” by an ordained person of faith, then you were never “married”.

    You are in a civil union that is disguised as a “marriage” by the language of legislature inspired by religion. Therefore, the “spiritual” part has in fact been bequeathed onto you by the State.

    You just didn’t realize it.

  46. Avitable

    NYCWD, I think you’re completely wrong on that. If you get married in a church, but don’t file it with the government, it’s invalid. If you get married with the gov’t but don’t do it in a church, it’s recognized and valid. Marriage has moved from a religious state to a purely secular one that has a voluntary religious aspect if the couple so desires.

    A lot of laws and concepts were inspired by religion. Just because their origins may lie with the church does not mean that they have not been transformed over time.

  47. Jer

    3 steps forward and 2 back. As a lesbian, who someday would like to be able to legally marry my partner, I was elated (Obama) and defeated all at once (Prop 8).

    Who decides what I can and can’t do? In America I can spit in someone’s face and get away with it (pretty much), but I can’t marry who I love and reap the same benefits? Not that I need a piece of paper to tell me anything is legal, but still.

    Read this: http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20081106/us_time/whygaymarriagewasdefeatedincalifornia

    This part angers me to know end.

    A symbolic low point for the gay side came on Oct. 13, when the Sacramento Bee ran a remarkable story about Rick and Pam Patterson, a Mormon couple of modest means – he drives a 10-year-old Honda Civic, she raises their five boys – who had withdrawn $50,000 from their savings account and given it to the pro-8 campaign. “It was a decision we made very prayerfully,” Pam Patterson, 48, told the Bee’s Jennifer Garza. “Was it an easy decision? No. But it was a clear decision, one that had so much potential to benefit our children and their children.”

    50K? Do you know what I can do with 50K? It certainly isn’t piss on someone’s parade.

    But like this quote from the BEE blog said, “Because if there’s something Mormons support, it’s marriage between one man and ONE woman. The other women they marry at the same time don’t count.”

    yeah…mormons…EAT IT!

  48. NYCWD

    I tend to disagree with that Avitable, based on the fact that the secularity of the word “marriage” can be debated. The indoctrination of sectual terms in legislation does not make it secular, specifically to those who are members of the sect.

    A “marriage” performed by the government is NOT recognized by either the Roman Catholic Church or from what I know of Jewish Halakha (sp? Shiny any help on that one?). A marriage performed by a religion gets filed with the state, and is therefore granted recognition… but if it is not filed it is not “invalid” as you claim, but rather simply not recognized by the state.

    If, as you contend, the word “marriage” has truly transformed from a religious nature to a non-religious one, then how do you explain the outcome of the votes? The transformation has not occurred… at least not to the majority of Floridians, Californians, Arizonians, or Arkies who still believe the term to have its original religious meaning of a contact between a man and a woman for the purpose of procreation.

  49. Karen

    I will admit to being a pretty conservative Republican. I am not thrilled with the election of Obama, although I will stand behind him and support him because that is what I think Americans should do. I also hope he proves me wrong and is the best President we have ever seen.

    That being said, I have absolutely no comprehension of why CA would pass Prop 8. It is horrible!! Equality means that every person should have the chance to be equally as miserable (oh, I mean happy) in marriage.

  50. Finn

    NYCWD You know, I think we’re talking semantics here. Legally, “marriage” and “civil union” are not the same thing. That’s way the gay community wants to be able to get married.

    According to the State of Florida, I am married. According to U.S. Government (or at least the IRS), I am married, with all the rights and privileges that implies.

    Now… if they want to grant “civil unions” the exact same rights and just not call it “marriage” because that is a religious thing, I think that’d work.

  51. NYCWD

    Finn

    EXACTLY!

    Sort of.

    For you and I, it is semantics… but to others the word “marriage” means more than the benefits the IRS bestows upon us.

    I say get rid of “marriage” for EVERYONE, both homo and hetero sexuals In the eyes of the state it should all be, equally righted and entitled, civil unions.

    Leave the word “marriage” to the religious zealots.

    Would it bother you to be in a “union” instead of a “marriage”?

  52. Sheila (Charm School Reject)

    So you all already know that I am a Conservative Christian Republican (who likes to get trashed every now and again). I am also a CCR that has had the worst week ever. I’m tired, cranky, my brain isn’t working right and I’m not really up for getting called names for this round so I am just going to say What Dawg Said!

    But, if I were put in the position of voting for or against it, I’d vote in favor of gay “marriages”.

    In fact, I recently did some research for my brother and his boyfriend and the City of Chicago both performs and recognizes these unions.

    I find it hard to believe that the Big Bad GOP managed to convince all of these people to vote in favor of the ban but couldn’t win them over to their side for the presidential election – especially considering the states that had the opportunity to vote on these issues are primarily democratic.

    I know, I know – I said I wasn’t going to say anything. STFU’ing now.

  53. Scout's Honor

    RW, RW, RW…sigh…if only the GOP had as much sway as you think. This argument might work in the bible belt, but not in California. This was bi-partisanly passed unfortunately. Stop scapegoating. Whites, Blacks, Latinos, Catholics, Mormons, Southern Baptists, Republican and Democrats passed this law. Let’s stop demonizing a party and take a hard look in the mirror.

  54. Faiqa

    LMAO @ RW.

    There are world religions that *have* defined marriage as being outside that of a man and woman, they just don’t fit into a Judeo-Christian paradigm. For example, there is a tradition among Hindus in the South of India that have some women marry trees, yes, TREES, to cast off bad karma from previous lives. Other religions have sanctified the marriage of men or women to a god, statue, even animal spirits. There are gods within the Hindu tradition who are of the same sex that have been married to one another. And, just so you know, Hinduism is waaaaay older than any of the Judeo-Christian traditions. At the very least, people should use the term “Judeo-Christian” with respect to religion if they seek to use that argument as a defense for man/woman marriage.

    Another thing, there are a variety of social constructs that may have initiated within religion, but have been altered to incorporate secular situations. For example, in the Old Testament, death is prescribed as the punishment for kidnapping. While we have retained that kidnapping is an act that warrants punishment, we have adjusted our construction of its punishment in a way that is more amenable to the modern world in which we live.

    Use of the term “social contruct” as it has been used in this discussion is interesting. When you admit that marriage between a man and a woman is a “social construct,” you must also concede that it should be adjusted according to a changing society. The fact that it can or will inevitably change is what renders it a social construct to begin with.

  55. Whoan Leavit

    I’m a conservative, no longer a Republican. (The party left me, I didn’t leave it.) Yes to #1, No to #2. I read Avi because he’s entertaining, and in many of his libertarian views he meshes with my own.

    I don’t believe he’s seriously asking for my input (easy to find lots of good people online — go read Peggy Noonan, for example) so I won’t bore you all with my own pathetic ideas.

    I would just ask you to each scan the 71 comments above, and try to visualize what it’s like to get treated like this when you’re asked to have a serious discussion.

    We live in a nation where the “reason it was created” was to make sure that every single one of us felt that they were free to speak their opinion.

    I’ve had to make up a name, here, something I’ve never done in a blog posting in five years.

  56. Fantasy Writer Guy

    Perhaps some people don’t want homosexuals being allowed to marry because deep down inside they’re afraid the homosexuals will choose not to.

    Interestingly — Any non-resident same-sex couple can come to Canada and get married. But you have to live here two years to get a divorce! That’s a long time to be stuck in the snow with someone you hate.

  57. RW

    I hold back on other people’s blogs, so I know woh-han isn’t talking about me.

    But anyone who wants to be treated like the miserable little shitface motherfucker they truly are is more than welcome to come on over to my blog and have your gonads fed to them on a pike.

    This IS me being civil. Go die in a fire.

  58. Scout's Honor

    Whooooah-n there buckaroo. I thought we were being pretty civil too with lots of spots of silly humor interspersed with serious discussion. The serious with the lighthearted.

    I hope you weren’t talking about me or RW? I’m a thick-skinned former veteran mother who survived ROTC and being Republican getting a Poli Sci degree from Berkeley of all places, so a little difference in perspective is always invigorating. I actually search out views that are different than my own on the blogosphere.

    And RW? I don’t know him, but he seems a’ight. Egregious misguided and gassy, but a’ight. :loser:

    Faiqia seems to be a cheeky monkey as does Sybil. The rest come off pretty respectful. So no need to hide. Avi’s bunch, while often coarse and vulgar in a good way, seem to be good-hearted peeps.

    Sheesh.

    Okay, I’m off to die on a pike on RW’s site. You’ve tempted me too much, RW, you Republican Wannabe. Heh! 😛 :loser:

  59. rory

    Honestly, I could care less. No wait a minute, I could not possibly care less. Let gays marry gays. Let gays marry puppies. Let straights marry plants. Hell, let avitable marry my truck.
    Couldn’t care.
    As long as you can eke out a little happiness in this life, why beat your head against a wall of “rights” vs. wrongs? Just do it, let it flow.
    Simplistic?
    Yeah baby, but that’s me. :sexytime: Is that Gov. Palin?

  60. Angie

    NYCWD: You have awesome points, articulating better than I some of what was going through my mind. I do take exception with a couple, though.

    First, strictly within the frame of reference of the Constitution, marriage IS a social construct. Hear me out. At the time pen was laid to paper, the Framers understood that society was dynamic; the mores of that time may not be those of future generations and a complicated list of “cans” and “cannots” would not only restrict change but compromise the validity of what that document sought to protect: Rights, freedoms, and liberties. You may notice, the Constitution is a VERY streamlined document, and for good reason. Allowed to evolve yet protected by the “checks and balances” among the branches of government, each with a duty to uphold the Constitution and thereby protect The People’s rights. Genius, in my opinion. Regardless, during that time, marriage was indeed viewed as a religious institution, a separation of Church and State hardwired into the Constitution; and in any case, I doubt the Framers could have conceived this issue ever making the national stage. While some of them may have had a bawdy sense of humor, I’d bet a dollar they would have called us ALL obscene for discussing it as openly as we do.

    Second, marriage was not ALWAYS a religious contract. That didn’t actually happen until the Middle Ages. Prior to that time, during that time, and even after that time – until current day – marriage was a tool, a BUSINESS CONTRACT by which to secure power and wealth and the basis of countless arranged marriages in untold cultures across many cross-sections of time, all across the world.

    That’s my point, I guess, that until there is a consensus, there is going to be a problem. Many view marriage based strictly on its religious foundations, others by standard of law; few (like you) are able to differentiate based on how the union was authorized (by the church or by the government) and determine whether it is a marriage (by the traditional definition) or a civil union. By that token, I think I agree with your answers of yes and no, and WHY – and yours has been one of the most logical arguments I’ve ever seen.

    Now, my marriage having been conducted in a house of worship, it has a religious nature in my eyes; I swore an oath to God. The fact that I needed to apply and pay for a license to be recognized by my State was incidental. The State really had nothing to do with it.

    However, I find it infuriating that some feel the need to involve themselves in another person’s decisions. Whether between a man and a woman, or couple of color (correct me if I’m wrong, but that was illegal not so long ago, as well), homosexual or polygamous or WHATEVER, as long as coercion (Thanks, RW!) is not present and no one is being harmed, why does it need to be legislated at all? Maybe if people would learn to stay out of other people’s business, stop trying to make decisions for them (even though they do not have to live with the consequences, the part that pisses me off the most), and stop imposing their will upon ALL, we wouldn’t be in the pot we’re in, ready to throw the match WITH OUR OWN HAND to start the fire and get to cookin.

    Thank you to everyone, for sharing your thoughts. If we do not share openly and with willingness to learn, we WILL become static; and that, IMO, is far more dangerous than allowing or not allowing X, Y, or Z to occur. And Avitable, you’re awesome!

  61. Black Belt Mama

    I’m Republican and I agree with those who say that you can’t just blame Republicans for this. Obviously, the Dems did quite well in this election and the voter turnout for Dems was huge, greater than the Republican turnout. I think the problem is with people in general; it wasn’t exclusively Republicans who disallowed these rights.

  62. Black Belt Mama

    Honestly, I don’t know how I feel about it. I can see reasoning on both sides. Sure there are medical benefits and things that would apply if gays were allowed to be married. But what about heterosexuals who choose not to marry but still live together? Then shouldn’t they be allowed the same rights? And then, what about polygamy, or some loon who wants to marry a sheep? I really don’t know. I think that the people who vote “no” are afraid of a slippery slope, not necessarily because of a prejudice or bias, although I’m sure that plays into it for some. I didn’t have to vote on that issue, and I’m glad because I really don’t know what I would have voted. And just so we’re clear, I’m a conservative with a TON of very close friends who happen to be gay.

  63. jester

    Why the hell does everyone keep jumping from gays getting married to people wanting to marry sheep?

    Is there something about homosexuality that automatically makes you think of bestiality?

    How does that thought process work? I think we can all agree that marriage is for humans who have the presence of mind to enter into a legally binding contract. You know… exactly what a marriage is.

    I say we take “marriage” away from everyone who got married by a justice of the peace or a ship’s captain or Rainbow the Spiritual Healer. If you didn’t get married in a church with a priest you didn’t get married… you got a “civil union” and should now lose all your protections under the law.

  64. Avitable

    BBM, actually, these laws didn’t only affect homosexuals. They also affected heterosexuals who did not want to get married but lived together. Polygamy is currently prohibited by Federal Law, but if a man and several consenting adult women wanted to marry, or vice versa, I’d have no problem with that. It’s their own private lives, and why would I want to try to have any say? And if you can find me a sheep that has the ability to consent to a legal contract and said sheep wants to marry a person, go for it!

  65. Black Belt Mama

    Jester: Slippery slope, that was my whole point. And for the record, I didn’t say “I” think that, I just said that maybe that might be a possible opposition from those who voted no. I didn’t vote on the issue-didn’t have the opportunity to.

    Avitable: I think we’ve all seen what a mess polygamy can be for women, especially young women who are raised to believe they don’t have a choice in the matter and who suffer sexual abuse from men old enough to be their grandparents. That is our business because it’s simply not right. I am completely against that. If you want to protect the rights of gay people and allow them to marry, then shouldn’t you also want to protect the rights of women who’ve been brainwashed, raped and abused and forced into that situation?

  66. Avitable

    Absolutely! That’s why I’d only support it between consenting adults, which means that they’re not under duress and they are making the decision of their own volition. I know that there are abuses, too, but those would be just as illegal as marriages where someone is abused and brainwashed into staying married.

  67. Sheila (Charm School Reject)

    I can understand what BBM is saying about that “slippery slope” leading to all sorts of things regarding marriage that can soon become a matter of “civil rights”.

    Another situation in which a law was passed and quickly turned into the proverbial “give an inch, take a mile” is Roe v Wade. You tell a woman she can have an abortion but there are limits to it. Next you can abort a baby up until the day before you deliver? (I realize that this is an extreme time frame for many states as most have outlawed after 28 weeks BUT the point is that it HAS gone that far.) Also, now, in most states, a minor can consent to having a major “medical procedure” without her parents knowledge. Should a parent be able to force a minor to have an abortion, adoption or keep a baby? No. But considering the fact that schools can’t even give out Tylenol without signing 17 forms, I think it’s preposterous to allow these young girls to get an abortion and, should there be any complications, have a couple of frightened parents who have no clue that there daughter even had this done try to figure out what the heck is wrong with their daughter.

    Do I have a problem with gay marriage? NOPE. Do I have a problem with civil unions? NOPE. But can I understand why someone would be against it (for whatever reason) or leery about it because of any repercussions that can come about simply because of the wording and interpretation of said law in the future?

    We all know how easily the law can be twisted simply based upon how society feels about a particular subject and/or the judge’s personal feelings about said subject. That’s a pretty scary situation when dealing with most civil rights issues.

  68. delmer

    I was at Joe.My.God on Wednesday and he had a photo of a group of folks celebrating the passing of Prop 8 in California. He captioned it “Later they did shots and told AIDS jokes.”

    I fail to see how allowing same-sex couples to marry affects the quality of anybody else’s life.

  69. Catherine

    re: Sheila’s “I think it’s preposterous to allow these young girls to get an abortion and, should there be any complications, have a couple of frightened parents who have no clue that there daughter even had this done try to figure out what the heck is wrong with their daughter.”

    Sheila, is that all you can picture? Nice, sweet, innocent frightened parents? The campaign admonished folks to think outside their bubble. Any doctor who would have had by law to tell the parents in the family I grew up in about any pregnancy or abortion on my part would have been effectively signing my death warrant.

  70. NYCWD

    Angie– First I apologize for the tardiness in getting back to the comment you directed at me… busy week and all that.

    While I understand what you are saying, there are certain things that are inaccurate about your argument. First, while marriage can be seen as a business contract, your timetable on it is way off. It is important to understand, as Faiqa mentioned earlier, that these views are predominantly from a Judeo-Christian perspective and from the perspective marriage has been around for millenia.

    With prostitution recognized as the oldest profession, then we must also acknowledge the world’s oldest corporation, religion. While the majority of these contracts prior to 6 AD were along the lines of arranged agreements by families, it was done through the ruling religious orders who acted as the then governing bodies. The rules that they set-up were for marriage to be the joining of a man and a woman for the reasons of pro-creation. The other matters of wealth were not a real concern to them as they were to the families, because the true currency of any religion is population. The more members a religious sect has, the more powerful it becomes, and the easiest way to increase your value is through birth. Just ask the Roman Catholic Church who tried to do it through missionary work and crusades… and ended up with schisms from both the Greek Orthodox Church and the various Protestant groups that decimated it’s power and influence. The only thing that changed in the Middle Ages was that governments started forming away from religious leaders but not necessarily separate.

    As you readily admitted, marriage was in fact recognized as a religious institution by the authors of the Constitution. The authors of the Constitution did not invent or create marriage nor have they claimed it as their own. Therefore it is not a social construct of the United States and its people. They took what they knew, and it was the commonality of marriage across the different groups that made it into our laws.

    The separation of Church and State is still a relatively new idea at only around 400 years old. For there to be a true separation of Church and State, those commonalities of the Founding Fathers need to be readjusted to commonalities of ALL the people… and renamed.

  71. Crys

    i am an independent who votes predominantly GOP. even so, people who deny the essential liberties and rights of other people are huge cockknockers in my book. the rights of gays (and all people) is a big deal to me.

    prop 8 passing (and the prop in Florida too) just eviscerates me.

    i hate everybody.

  72. martymankins

    The quick answers to both questions are YES and YES.

    As I’ve posted several times on my blog, marriage is a civil legal issue. A lot of people, including many that write OpEd letters to my local paper, Salt Lake Tribune, feel it’s some sort of “ordained by God” exclusive right. If this were the case, atheists would have to be quized at the courthouse when applying for a marriage license.

    Regardless, it’s a right that shouldn’t exclude any tax-paying adult. Any constitution, either federally or at a state level, should NEVER be about removing rights from anyone for any reason.

Leave a Reply