Friday, January 15, 2010

A Good Ruling in DC

The Washington DC City Council recently voted to allow marriages between same-sex couples. There was some indignation, Marion Barry predicted it would be "civil war," some preachers got in an uproar and decided they wanted to overrule the council by holding a referendum. Pretty much what you expect, I guess.

The referendum went to court and lost. Here's The Post:
A D.C. Superior Court judge ruled Thursday that same-sex marriage opponents do not have a right to call for a referendum to determine whether such unions should be legal in the District.

The decision, a major victory for gay rights activists, makes it more likely that the District will begin allowing same-sex couples to marry in March.

In the 23-page ruling, Judge Judith N. Macaluso affirmed a D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics decision that city law disallows the ballot proposal because it would promote discrimination against gay men and lesbians. Macaluso also concluded that previous court decisions outlawing same-sex marriage in the District are no longer valid. D.C. judge rules against marriage referendum

There is a kind of fundamental tension between the will of the majority and the rights of minorities. If everything went up for a vote then the laws would simply encode the norms of the community. By electing representatives to debate and decide on new laws we add a layer of prudence, and by hanging all of it on a Constitution that guarantees rights to individuals we take away the majority's ability to force popular norms and customs on nonconformists.

This case of the District's marriage law seems to me to be a perfect instance of how the system was intended to work. You know, it might be that once those preachers got to preaching, a majority of DC residents would go out to vote against the rights of gay citizens to marry the one they love. Maybe most of the people there disapprove of that sort of thing. But guess what: it doesn't matter. The rights of the minority are not up for a vote, they are guaranteed.

Here's the meat of the judge's opinion, as relayed through the morning paper:
In her decision, Macaluso stated the board "properly rejected the proposed initiative" because of the Human Rights Act. The judge also rejected arguments that same-sex marriage should be illegal in the District because of the 1995 Dean v. District of Columbia decision.

In that case, the D.C. Court of Appeals ruled that the city did not have to recognize same-sex marriage because the government's intent to oppose such marriages was clear. Now, Macaluso concluded, the intent of the government in favor of allowing two men or two women to marry is clear.

"These clear manifestations of intent to alter the traditional definition of marriage did not exist when Dean was decided," the judge wrote. "Dean expressly relied upon the absence of such indications in concluding that the Council intended to retain the definition of marriage as occurring only between a man and a woman.

"Under these circumstances, Dean's holding is no longer controlling."

Despite opponents' plans to appeal, they are running out of time to block same-sex marriages in the District. Congress has begun the required 30-legislative-day review of the same-sex marriage law.

City leaders said that, barring intervention by Congress, marriage licenses will be available to same-sex couples around the first week of March.

Nobody expects Congress to do anything to block this one.

Congratulations to the District of Columbia.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

"by hanging all of it on a Constitution that guarantees rights to individuals we take away the majority's ability to force popular norms and customs on nonconformists"

no one has suggested forcing non-conformists to do anything

the non-conformists are seeking to force official recognition of the validity of one aspect of their non-conformity

"You know, it might be that once those preachers got to preaching, a majority of DC residents would go out to vote against the rights of gay citizens to marry the one they love"

people can't necessarily marry "the one they love"- there are all sorts of rules spelling out what relationships will be recognized by the state

society can choose what they want to endorse

non-conformists are free to rebel without penalty but they shouldn't be able to force the rest of us to participate in their world

"the rights of the minority are not up for a vote, they are guaranteed"

what right?

January 15, 2010 10:45 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"society can choose what they want to endorse"
A good example: divorce (now at a staggering 50% of societal-recognized and endorsed heterosexual marriages) Really nice "Family Value", huh? Speaks loads about the so-called "sanctity of marriage" that is reserved exclusively for heterosexuals.

"non-conformists are free to rebel without penalty but they shouldn't be able to force the rest of us to participate in their world"
People who enter into matrimony so easily that it can be dismissed by a court decision are "non-comformists". I resent having this farce forced on me and my world!

January 15, 2010 11:23 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey Phoebe.

all the married folks are going to get divorced when the expiration to the bush tax cuts go into effect... the marriage penalty is going way, way up.

has anyone noticed that scott brown is now LEADING in the polls ???

and for Bea -

Medicare and ObamaCare

To the point, at least one of the Mayo clinics has stopped accepting Medicare patients.

And Medicare Advantage, the program that allows you to supplement your health insurance under the Obama plan, is gone.

So if you can't use the private Medicare Advantage option (it's gone) and you can't find a doctor to treat you because no one will take your Medicare...

Where do you go ?

can't find a recent article on the tri-care cuts, but here's the summary out of a CBO report. Not sure how much has changed.,15240,182097,00.html


January 15, 2010 11:50 AM  
Anonymous like to help ya, son, but you're too young to vote said...

The students of the H.W. Smith School in Syracuse, N.Y., are upset with President Obama for answering an invitation to visit their school with a form letter. The children mailed the president a letter on Nov. 13, inviting him to come help them build a snowman. They included a photo of the group, and wrote about how building a snowman together would demonstrate unity and peaceful living.

The reply they received from the White House was dated Nov. 6 -- a week before they sent their letter -- and was addressed to "students." Most of the students said they had hoped for something more personal than a form letter.

"I was disappointed because I think his office could have done better than that," Kiana Furgeson, a sixth-grader at H.W. Smith said. Simeon Greenberg, a third-grader, added: "I felt disrespected. It was very disappointing to get that kind of response."

The students decided to answer the White House with a complaint about its informal response, and sent Obama another letter asking him to consider having his staff write personal responses to his mail. "If they wrote the letter we received as an answer on a test, they would not have a passing grade because they did not answer the question," the students wrote.

January 15, 2010 1:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I resent having this farce forced on me and my world!"

no one is forcing a farce on you

quite the opposite

you're trying to force a farce on us

January 15, 2010 1:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Great Scott!!

if the Dems can't win in Massachusetts, where can they win?

they better pass Obamacare this weekend

it may well be their last chance:

"Riding a wave of opposition to Democratic health-care reform, GOP upstart Scott Brown is leading in the U.S. Senate race, raising the odds of a historic upset that would reverberate all the way to the White House, a new poll shows.

Although Brown’s 4-point lead over Democrat Martha Coakley is within the Suffolk University survey’s margin of error, the underdog’s position at the top of the results stunned even pollster David Paleologos.

“It’s a Brown-out,” said Paleologos, director of Suffolk’s Political Research Center. “It’s a massive change in the political landscape.”

The poll shows Brown, a state senator from Wrentham, besting Coakley, the state’s attorney general, by 50 percent to 46 percent, the first major survey to show Brown in the lead. Only 1 percent of voters were undecided.

Paleologos said bellwether models show high numbers of independent voters turning out on election day, which benefits Brown, who has 65 percent of that bloc compared to Coakley’s 30 percent.

Given the 4.4-point margin of error, the poll shows Coakley could win the race, Paleologos said. But if Brown’s momentum holds, he is poised to succeed the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy - and to halt health-care reform, the issue the late senator dubbed “the cause of my life.”

Yet even in the bluest state, it appears Kennedy’s quest for universal health care has fallen out of favor, with 51 percent of voters saying they oppose the “national near-universal health-care package” and 61 percent saying they believe the government cannot afford to pay for it.

The poll, conducted Monday through Wednesday, surveyed 500 registered likely voters who knew the date of Tuesday’s election. It shows Brown leading all regions of the state except Suffolk County.

And with 99 percent having made up their minds, voters may be hard to persuade.

Brown wins among men and is remarkably competitive among women - trailing Coakley’s 50 percent with 45 percent.

While Brown has 91 percent of registered Republicans locked up, an astonishing 17 percent of Democrats report they’re jumping ship for Brown as well - likely a product of Coakley’s laser-focus on hard-core Dems, at the exclusion of other Democrats whom she needed to win over, Paleologos said.

For Coakley, Brown’s surge may be as ominous as the fact that her campaign’s peril is not fully recognized, with 64 percent of voters still believing she’ll win - a perception that threatens to keep her supporters home.

Brown’s popularity is solid. He enjoys a 57 percent favorability rating compared to just 19 percent unfavorable. Coakley’s favorability is 49 percent; her unfavorability, 41 percent.

No longer does Brown suffer from a name-recognition problem, with 95 percent of voters having heard of him statewide."

January 15, 2010 1:28 PM  
Anonymous whoops, there it is said...

"President Barack Obama rallied House Democrats Thursday around the healthcare bill as they head into a midterm election campaign.

Obama said that Republican opposition to the healthcare bill will buoy Democrats in November."

on behalf of all conservatives, I'd just like to thank Barry for sticking with it


January 15, 2010 1:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The children have a good strategy. Keep Obama writing personal letters to them so he doesn't have time to socialize our existence.

January 15, 2010 2:52 PM  
Anonymous a thin man said...

a sense of dread has descended on the lunatic fringe:

"WASHINGTON -- A senior Massachusetts lawmaker says if Republicans win a special Senate election there next week, President Obama's health care overhaul is dead.

Democrat Barney Frank told reporters Friday: "If Scott Brown wins, it'll kill the health bill."

The Massachusetts congressman said Democratic candidate Martha Coakley should have campaigned harder for the seat held for decades by Edward Kennedy."

we'll soon shake your windows and rattle your walls

cause the times they are-a changin'

January 15, 2010 4:21 PM  
Anonymous will rogers said...

not a good time to be a dumb damn Dem liberal

that's for dang sure!

Scott Brown, he's good people

January 15, 2010 5:15 PM  
Anonymous ROFLOL said...

this is getting fun:

"President Obama will travel to Massachusetts on Sunday in an effort to boost Democratic Senate Candidate Martha Coakley, the White House announced on Friday.

Coakley, the state's attorney general, is running against Republican State Sen. Scott Brown in Tuesday's special election to replace the late Sen. Ted Kennedy.

The race was expected to be an easy win for the Democrat, but recent polls have shown it to be very close. The latest poll shows Brown ahead of Coakley 50 percent to 46 percent.

Those results and other recent close polls have brought massive amounts of attention to what was supposed to be a boring race.

Republicans have become energized by the possibility of ending the Democrats' 60-vote supermajority, which would also spell the end for the health care bill. That possibility has sparked wide concern among local and national Democratic leaders who are now trying to pull out all the stops in order to stop Brown's momentum.

As part of that effort, Mr. Obama recorded a robo-call message for voters in the state on behalf of Coakley.

"I rarely make these calls, and I truly apologize for intruding on your day," the president says. "[Martha Coakley] represents the best progressive values of Massachusetts. She'll be your voice and my ally."

Additionally, in one of its latest e-mails to supporters about the race, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee sent a message from Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), who spearheaded health care reform efforts once Kennedy fell ill.

"Health care was the cause of my friend Ted Kennedy's life," Dodd wrote. "So it sickens me that the Republican running to take Ted's place is vowing to be the 41st vote to kill health care reform.""

Chris Dodd, Barack Obama...this all getting just too entertaining...

this week, Tuesday will be Happy Hour night!!!

January 15, 2010 6:03 PM  
Anonymous disgusted by dems said...

Chris Dodd

doesn't even have the balls to face next November what Coakley's facing now

yeah, I'm sure citizens from Massachusetts put a lot of credence in the advice of that quitter

January 15, 2010 6:06 PM  
Anonymous oh boy, george said...

A noted civil rights group is asking Walt Disney Co. shareholders to vote for a proposal to adopt non-discrimination language against "ex-gays" at the company's annual meeting in March. Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays, or PFOX, says Disney's exclusion of "ex-gay" language from the company's employment policies and diversity training discriminates against those who choose to "leave" homosexuality.

PFOX says Disney's policies supports gays but excludes support of ex-gays. The Group says the addendum is necessary because "ex-gays are subject to an increasingly hostile environment because they live a different view of homosexuality,".

Disney is urging shareholders to vote against the proposal, saying it would be inappropriate to amend its policy "to address the specific situation." Reached by phone, Disney declined further comment.

PFOX supports reparative therapy, by which gays become attracted to the opposite sex through prayer and therapy, according to the American Psychological Association. The APA issued a statement in August concerning rigorous scientific studies of reparative therapy.

PFOX's proposal is absurd, said Wayne Bessen, executive director of a gay advocacy group. Bessen says, as straight people, ex-gays couldn't be discriminated against under Disney's policies.

The SEC said the proposal should be allowed to be considered by shareholders despite Disney's objections. "What the [SEC] has said is that Disney must let this shareholder resolution go forward" and be voted upon, said Daryl Herrschaft, director of the workplace project at a gay advocacy group.

Herrschaft called the plan to amend Disney's policies "wrongheaded" but added that PFOX's effort is novel in that it seeks to add a significant class of people.

The vote will be watched closely as the backlash against the gay agenda continues to gain momentum among the American people.

January 15, 2010 9:38 PM  
Anonymous oh no, not again said...

Representative Vic Snyder of Arkansas announced Friday evening that he would not run for re-election in November, becoming the 11th House Democrat to bow out in the tough political environment.

January 15, 2010 10:51 PM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

Yikes Sybil!

You used to complain about Priya Lynn making multiple posts as if doing so signified some sort of illness. Maybe it's time for you to head to the doctor. Whatever, try to take it easy this holiday weekend. Enjoy celebrating Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday on Monday.

January 16, 2010 8:03 AM  
Anonymous Aunt Bea said...

"non-conformists are free to rebel without penalty but they shouldn't be able to force the rest of us to participate in their world"

Oh brother, Anone. Just because our laws allow us to do something that doesn't appeal to all of us, that doesn't mean our laws "force the rest of us to participate."

Eating oysters on the half shell is legal as long as the oysters were legally harvested. Some people love to eat these raw oysters from their shells and others are reviled by the idea of it. If you don't want to eat raw oysters, don't and no one will force you to "participate." If you don't want to marry someone of the same sex, don't. Allowing something to happen does not in any way force it to happen.

one of the Mayo clinics has stopped accepting Medicare patients.

If a Mayo Clinic refuses to provide health care coverage to American citizens who have no choice but to rely on Medicare, then US government should stop providing that Mayo Clinic with federal research grant money IMHO.

January 16, 2010 8:14 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Just because our laws allow us to do something that doesn't appeal to all of us, that doesn't mean our laws "force the rest of us to participate.""

you're confusing terms

no one has stopped gays from having some farcical ceremony and calling themselves married

the issue is societal and governmental recognition

January 16, 2010 1:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

U.S. Senate Candidate Martha Coakley said Thursday she opposes any law that would include conscience protections for medical workers who are opposed to abortion.

Coakley is the Democratic candidate for the Jan. 19 special Senate election in Massachusetts to fill the seat vacated by the late Sen. Edward Kennedy.

She even suggested those that hold deeply held religious beliefs should avoid working in hospitals.

"The law says that people are allowed to have (the morning-after pill)," Coakley told WBSM radio host Ken Pittman. "So, you can have religious freedom, (but) you probably shouldn't work in the emergency room.

The comments immediately drew fire from people of faith in Massachusetts, including Susan Fani, director of communications at the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights.

"It's really incredible," she said, "that you've got the attorney general, the No. 1 lawyer in Massachusetts, basically saying, 'Sure you can have freedom of conscience, but not under certain circumstances.'"

January 16, 2010 2:03 PM  
Anonymous the green monster said...

this is getting embarassin', real embarassin':

"In the intensifying Democratic precriminations game over who to blame if Coakley loses, here's one for the blame Coakley camp: On another talk radio show, "Nightside With Dan Rea," Coakley jabs Rudy Giuliani as a Yankee fan, then goes on to describe Brown supporter Curt Schilling, the great former Red Sox pitcher, as a Yankee fan as well.

The host sounds incredulous -- "Curt Schilling? The Red Sox great pitcher of the bloody sock?" -- and Coakley sounds unfamiliar with him.

Schilling, when asked for response said, "I've been called a lot of things...but never, I mean never, could anyone make the mistake of calling me a Yankee fan. Well, check that, if you didn't know what the hell is going on in your own state maybe you could...""

Can she still win?


January 16, 2010 2:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"BOSTON -- Shaken by polls showing Republican Scott Brown surging in the Senate race that could decide the fate of President Obama's agenda, Democrats on Friday scrambled to shore up the battered candidacy of Martha Coakley, the state attorney general whose once-commanding lead appeared to vanish in the space of two weeks.

The White House announced that Obama will campaign here Sunday. Former president Bill Clinton broke away from promoting Haitian relief to rally the Democratic faithful, which polls show has taken a victory by Coakley as much for granted as analysts say her campaign clearly did.

Both candidates announced plans to barnstorm the three days before Tuesday's special election. Brown will mount a bus tour; Coakley will place her hopes on a recast stump speech unveiled at the rallies with Clinton.

The fundamental dynamic of the race fell in place months ago, when Brown set off in a pickup truck for the only campaign the Republican could afford: retail, door-to-door. The campaign was so strapped for cash that aides described the $40,000 spent in the primary as a major hit. Brown could not afford to mail out absentee ballots, often so crucial in a close race. "So our program consists of e-mail and Facebook and Twitter," said Eric Fehrnstrom, a campaign official.

By working kitchens, bars and sidewalks, however, Brown was positioned to capitalize on the rising tide of discontent at the grass-roots level over taxes, unemployment and Washington. The frustration is especially evident among independents, who account for fully half of Massachusetts voters by registration. And after repeatedly winning election to the state Senate from a district Obama won with 60 percent, Brown had experience framing a message with broad appeal. "This is a big tent, folks," he said Friday. "One thing I know you all have in common is you believe in fairness and good government.""

don't we all?

January 16, 2010 2:34 PM  
Anonymous Robert said...

I wonder if PFOX will encourage Disney to adopt non-discrimination policies for people whose mother's don't accept them.

January 16, 2010 2:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

what a lot of people don't realize is that Massachusetts is now a leader in the nation

in recent years, they have regularly produced Presidential nominees from Dukakis to Kerry to Romney

not long ago, they elected theor first black governor before we elected our first black president

they also have Obamacare in place already

97% of the Bay State citizens have health care which was popular for a while but, now, only 32% of voters there say it has been a success

so they are fully aware that they can stop national health care next Tuesday

and they're inclined to do it

leaders again

they're leading the national backlash against the dumb damn Dems

after 10% unemployment and East Anglia and a Christmas security failure and giving enemy combatants the right to remain silent and the scandalous bribes to certain states and unions to support a catastrophic healthcare package, we've had enough

we won't get fooled again!

January 16, 2010 2:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

we sure don't live in a boring country:

"BOSTON – A few yards from a statue of Paul Revere, with a racous crowd shouting "the liberals are coming, the liberals are coming," Rudy Giuliani opened a weekend of celebrity politicking Friday in a Massachusetts Senate race that has suddenly turned into a cliff-hanger.

About 300 people gathered in a park in Boston's Italian North End to cheer on Giuliani and his candidate, Republican state Sen. Scott Brown, whose rapid ascent is threatening not only Democrat Martha Coakley but health reform and the rest of President Obama's agenda in Washington.

If Coakley loses, Democrats will lose the 60-vote majority they need to cut off Republican filibusters and pass bills.

Giuliani told Massachusetts voters to send Obama and his party a "loud and clear" signal by electing Brown. A few hours later, speaking to some 700 Coakley supporters in a hotel ballroom, former president Bill Clinton implored the same voters not to "repeat the mistakes" of eight years under national Republicans. "You just have to decide whether you want us to be a tomorrow country or a yesterday country," he said, adding that Coakley is the "tomorrow" candidate.

The last thing Democrats expected was that the race in this usually reliable Democratic state would imperil Kennedy's life's work on health care. His sons and widow have mobilized to help Coakley, as have Obama and core Democratic constituencies such as unions. Clinton did rallies with Coakley on Friday in Boston and Worcester. Highlighting the stakes for Democrats, Obama himself will be here Sunday.

Energized conservatives have been pouring money into Brown's campaign since it became clear a week ago that he had a shot at winning. Giuliani, the former New York mayor who became known as "America's mayor" in the wake of 9/11, said Paul Revere "warned about danger and woke up the people of Massachusetts and New England at a much earlier time in our history. And we need Scott now to wake us up about some of the mistakes that we are making."

A Brown victory would be a clear protest against Democratic policies on terrorism, spending, and health care reform, Giuliani said, and added: "If the people of Massachusetts do it, boy, it'll be heard all around the country." He and Brown said Coakley doesn't understand the terrorist threat to the United States.

Brown depicts himself as a non-partisan everyman. "This is a historic election to bring common sense back to Washington," he said. He opposes Obama's plans on health, energy, the economy and financial regulation. He also opposes Obama's proposed fee on banks to recoup tens of billions in bailout money that they received to keep them from collapse. He said Friday that banks would pass the cost to consumers.

Coakley's campaign announced a four-day "Fighting For You" tour across the state. She framed the race in those terms at the rally with Clinton. "The choice is clear. Scott Brown will fight for the wealthy, for Wall Street. I'm going to fight for you," she said.

Democrats at the rally said Brown's approach to "common sense" would mean working with Capitol Hill Republicans to kill Obama's initiatives and restore the policies that voters rejected in the 2008 election. "This is an extraordinary camouflage campaign," said Sen. John Kerry, who appeared using a cane after a recent hip replacement operation. "For eight years he was George Bush's yes man. Now he wants to go to Washington and become (Senate Republican leader) Mitch McConnell's no man."

There are more than three times as many Democrats as Republicans in Massachusetts, but more than half the state's voters are not registered with any party."

January 16, 2010 3:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anonymous" sure are hyped-up - you write as if you owned this Blog site! What drug are you on this week?

Nothing, except for the lies spewed forth by Republicans,Tea Baggers, Limbaughites, Beckers, and air heads of your ilk, can match your ego.
Just shut up for a while and give the world a vacation from your rants and raves for once.

January 17, 2010 12:28 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


people aren't falling for your spin anymore

try something new

January 17, 2010 12:56 AM  
Anonymous mr dread said...

In one of the final public polls we should see before Tuesday's special election on Massachusetts, American Research Group finds Republican Scott Brown with a slight edge over Martha Coakley.

Special Election Matchup

Brown (R) 48
Coakley (D) 45
Kennedy (I) 2
Und 5

Coakley loses one-in-five Democrats to Brown, while the Republican state senator has 94 percent of Republicans behind him. Brown has a commanding 58-37 advantage among "unenrolled" voters, mainly independents and those who prefer not to register affiliation with the major parties.

A trend worth noting as well: 9 percent of voters say they'd already cast a ballot through absentee voting. Brown leads Coakley among this group 58-42.

January 17, 2010 1:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...\

January 17, 2010 7:57 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anonymous" Troll:
You once again lied: "people aren't falling for your spin anymore try something new"


People here are very charitable and show compassion for tolerating your screw-ball ideas and rants.
There is no doubt that you earn your salary from whomever it is who pays you to troll here. What a waste of money, though - no one here gives you one scintilla of credibility.

January 18, 2010 10:26 AM  
Blogger Unknown said...

Sociopathanon: "society can choose what they want to endorse"

Phoebe: A good example: divorce (now at a staggering 50% of societal-recognized and endorsed heterosexual marriages) Really nice "Family Value", huh? Speaks loads about the so-called "sanctity of marriage" that is reserved exclusively for heterosexuals.

And let’s not forget about the children affected by those perfectly acceptable heterosexual divorces:

“More than ten thousand studies have concluded that kids do best when they are raised by loving and committed mothers and fathers.”

--James Dobson, Marriage Under Fire, p54

Fortunately it’s not at all sinful to provide those kids with a new loving and committed parent...oh, wait a minute...

Luke 16:18: "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery."

January 19, 2010 5:15 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


this line you lunatics occassionally bring up, that society should redefine homosexual unions as marriage because the divorce rate is high, really makes no sense

the voters in every state in the union that has voted on it say that marriage is between a man and woman

the undesirability of divorce doesn't change that

January 19, 2010 7:15 AM  
Blogger Unknown said...

“this line you lunatics occassionally bring up, that society should redefine homosexual unions as marriage because the divorce rate is high, really makes no sense”

Sure it does. It means you have no credibility.

January 23, 2010 7:59 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home