Home The Author The Book Reviews FAQs More Stuff The Other Side


BLOG

RSS Feed 

Thursday, November 06, 2008

 

Shame on you, California

Because, while the last votes are still being counted it seems that Proposition 8 - you know, that motion that a Constitution should actually be used to take away rights - has passed.

Any Californian who voted for Prop 8, or who could have gone to the polls to vote against it and didn't: hang your head. Constitutions are there to enshrine rights, not to block them. There are thousands of gay couples now in a state of uncertainty about whether their marriage is legal or not. You've caused a lot of human suffering. Godwin can bite me: invalidating marriages the state doesn't approve of is Nuremberg tactics. You've used your vote to enshrine in your Constitution - your Constitution - that your gay neighbours, co-workers, relations and friends are second-class citizens. Shame on you.

To everyone who took advantage of this brief window of opportunity to marry your beloved, or who would have liked to but missed the opportunity: my deepest sympathies. This isn't the end of the fight, in America or elsewhere; with enough of a fight - and gay rights has a shedload of good fighters on its side - legal discrimination has been overturned in the past and can and will be in the future. But I'm sure you're feeling pretty miserable today. My condolences. All I can say is this: whatever the law says, I see you as married. So, I hope, does everyone of good conscience. So screw Proposition 8: congratulations on your marriage, and I wish you many long and happy years together.

Comments:
Damn right!

Verification: hoarboat, the vehicle used to convey proposition 8 supporters across water

Then, when I typo'd, the new verification is blogra, the sound of an angry blogger
 
Ironically, Barack Obama is almost certainly the cause of Proposition 8's passage. He did oppose Proposition 8 (though he also opposes gay marriage) and he brought a huge number of African-American voters to the polls. African-Americans voted 70% in favor of Proposition 8 and provided the margin of victory. Without that boost, it had looked like Proposition 8 was almost certain to fail.
 
Well, the increase in African American voters in California is ONE of the causes. It's a little hard to say there's a single cause--remember that the Catholic Church and the Mormons poured huge amounts of money into passing the monstrous thing.

Verification word: "defor"--to claim that what had been viewed as the reason for something was, in fact, not. (I'm starting to wonder about blogger.)
 
Certainly Catholics were a key constituency as well (59% voted for Obama, but 64% voted for Proposition 8). The Mormons also poured a lot of money into it, but there was actually more money opposed to it than for it ($38 million opposed compared to $32 million for).

I'm surprised California doesn't require a super-majority (60% or more) for Constitutional changes. I see however that the California Constitution is a ridiculously bloated document (110 1/2 pages long) which apparently is routinely used for ordinary legislative proposals. It'll be changed hundreds more times in the next couple of decades. I wouldn't view this as a serious defeat. I.e. the California Constitution should not be taken as seriously as an ordinary Constitution is, since Californians don't take it seriously.
 
African Americans make up 10 percent of the total population of California. All groups voted more "yes" than "no," including whites, Latinos, Catholics, Mormons (obviously) and so on. Good discussion on it here and here. (John Scalzi has also hosted much discussion on it on his blog.)

A lot of factors played into this. (I've been conversing with a friend of mine who was fighting for the "no" vote.) The "yes" people put forth a lot of false premises that weren't combated effectively -- that "gay marriage" was going to be taught to kindergarteners and foolishness like this. The "no" people put out a commerical that seemed to demonize Mormons in particular, which turned some people away (the commercial was pulled). And a lot of people I and some friends spoke to here seemed to be confused by the double negative of voting no to say no to saying "no to same sex marraige." (Saying no to say yes to same sex marriage?)

I really expected this foul proposition to go down, and am wondering where to go from here. I feel indescribably happy about this election, and now guilty because my happiness conincides with a huge injustice against others that I care about.

New York looks to gain some Democratic seats at the state senate level, two of whom have already gone on record as in favor of same-sex marriage -- right now we recognize them when performed elsewhere, but don't perform them in the state. So now we have some work to do and some people to reach. It's not over.

Is it religion, or education level? How long is this going to bloody take?
 
And a lot of people I and some friends spoke to here seemed to be confused by the double negative of voting no to say no to saying "no to same sex marraige." (Saying no to say yes to same sex marriage?)
And Blogger's word for me today is "pabzfus" which is the fuss a confused Pabst drinker makes over an unclear Proposition.

I'm beginning to wonder abour Blogger too.
 
African Americans make up 10 percent of the total population of California. All groups voted more "yes" than "no," including whites, Latinos, Catholics, Mormons (obviously) and so on. Good discussion on it here and here. (John Scalzi has also hosted much discussion on it on his blog.)

The link to Sebastian's post on Obsidian Wings states that 55% of non-Latino whites voted no. Also 10% of the population of California is not African-American. Only 6.2% is, 10% was their size of the California electorate in 2008, due to enthusiasm in voting for Obama.

However, Sebastian's 55% is not accurate according to CNN's exit polls and it was closer than that among whites, but whites still voted against (as did Asians).

CNN's results:

White (63% of electorate) - 49% yes, 51% no
African-American (10%) - 70% yes, 30% no
Latino (18%) - 53% yes, 47% no
Asian (6%) - 49% yes, 51% no
Other (3%) - 51% yes, 49% no

However, I do retract some of my statement. If African-Americans had not voted at all, it looks like Proposition 8 would probably have gone down to a very narrow defeat. This indicates that the larger than usual African-American turnout was not decisive, though the African-American vote was.

As for religion v. education level, religion was quite clearly the deciding factor. Those who said "no religion" (16%) voted 90% no. Education only mattered if the people have postgraduate degrees (60% no) with all other education levels voting yes, but this is probably due to correlation with no religion rather than education itself.

And Blogger's word for me is elsaddyj which is very close to El Shaddai, one of the Judaic names for God.
 
Ah -- I misread some. And last I checked (yesterday), the final tally had not come in.

I am trying to not feel personally responsible for all the actions taken by members of my community, but this is tainting what should be the biggest event of my life, probably. You don't take away from others what's just been given to you (more or less. Imperfect analogy, yadda yadda). You just don't. It's bad form.

For ages I've been having this fight even with some members of my own family (feeling particularly rotten for my cousin and her wife), and am at a loss as to what to do about it.

Ah, well. Connecticut did it, and when the fight comes to New York we'll be ready.
 
One of the saddest things I have ever read is the e-mail I received from a dear friend who was wed to her beloved in California just this summer.

Their little son came into their room on Wednesday morning and asked if they were "still married."

"Defense of Marriage" my ass. The people of California have just HARMED my (hetero) marriage, by declaring it something that can be invalidated by their disapproval of whom I choose to love.

Kit, please, give us some wedding (or, in the UK, "civil union" I suppose) planning news. I need to hear something upbeat about creating new families right now.

(Word verification: "plaut", which is the plaintive bleat of someone buffetted by the extremes of political results)
 
Thanks for the interest, hapax! :-)Well, we're having a secular ceremony on an organic farm that does a lot of charity work, including providing holidays for young carers - children who have to look after their disabled or addicted parents, so the wedding expenses will go to a good cause. There may be singing. Small children will blow bubbles. There will probably be pie for dinner. Wellies will be recommended on the invitations, so people can tramp around the farm. Women will make speeches as well as men (all of them under instructions to keep to a five-minute limit, out of respect for our guests' patience). There will be no 'Who gives this woman to be married', no 'pronounce you man and wife', no 'kiss the bride' - I'm giving myself, we're pronouncing ourselves husband and wife and kissing each other, thank you very much.

I was thinking of putting out an internet drive to a British gay rights charity, probably Stonewall, by way of marking the day with a recognition of the fact that my fellow-citizens don't have the same rights I do (and donating myself, obviously); would any of you guys donate if I did?

Word is 'ruperize', which is what seems to have been done to the minds of Californian voters.
 
All is not lost! For one thing, the hateful proposition passed, but by a lot smaller margin than a similar one passed by several years ago. Progress is being made. For another thing, if you look at the vote by age breakdown, young people voted OVERWHELMINGLY no, with the yes vote increasing as you go up in age. I don't think it is surprising that young people are more tolerant, but it is reassuring to look at that and realize that as time goes on and my generation takes more control of the political system, there will be less of this type of hate.
Lastly! The ACLU has filed a lawsuit challenging Prop 8 because the California Constitution requires amendments to be reviewed by the legislature before being put to a popular vote, and this was not. Details: http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/relationships/37706prs20081105.html

Word is "sculfox," a particularly sneaky type of hate-supporting politician.
 
I was thinking of putting out an internet drive to a British gay rights charity, probably Stonewall, by way of marking the day

Well, I was wondering what to give you as a wedding present :)

Sound like a fun wedding. Wellies, huh? I take it you guys aren't big on formality!

The word for tonight is "codest," or the happy joining of two individual fates into a blessed whole. And may those rights and blessings be available to all who desire them.
 
Firstly, yes I would donate if Mika told me to.
Second, your wedding sounds awesome!
I love bubbles.

In fact, I have a theory that nobody on the planet is as happy as a three year old with bubbles.
 
Ironically, Barack Obama is almost certainly the cause of Proposition 8's passage. He did oppose Proposition 8 (though he also opposes gay marriage) and he brought a huge number of African-American voters to the polls. African-Americans voted 70% in favor of Proposition 8 and provided the margin of victory. Without that boost, it had looked like Proposition 8 was almost certain to fail.

Perhaps - though it's being questioned whether such a theory is viable, given that the only information it's based on is exit polls, which aren't entirely reliable.

But what's really starting to get my attention is how quick people have been to make this point. I've been tooling around the Internet a reasonable amount over the last couple of days, and people are leaping to blame the high African-American turnout with an alacrity that makes me wonder.

The innocent explanation is that it's the basic Democrat tendency to shoot oneself in the foot by picking holes in a victory. We won! Oh, but look, that means trouble's a-brewin! But it's starting to make me uncomfortable. Obviously statistical analysis is useful, but it's the speed with which some people are blaming Prop 8 on race rather than, say, religion or age - also major factors - that's concerning me. And I find it hard to believe that if the exit polls has showed a higher proportion of white people had voted pro than black people, anybody would be banging the drum about it this much.
 
(I would donate as well, by the way, and send others your way if I can.)

Daily Kos also provides a more detailed look at the numbers today.

I'm not at my most eloquent -- this week I've been an emotional crazypants. I suppose simpler is better: There's a lot of work to be done on many fronts still (and hearts and minds to win over) and it would be better if we did it together.

(And I'm developing rather a huge and unseemly crush on Ta-Nahesi Coates, who says today that: "The anger is justified, expected, and human. But it's not how we're going to fix this.")

(I don't think "thiessit" is a word. I feel left out. :-D )
 
The article you link to isn't a terribly credible argument. I'm a statistician; nobody knows better than I do the problems with exit polls. But they'd have to be abysmally conducted in order to make an error of that kind of magnitude. And, considering that the exit polls got most everything right this time around, there's no evidence for the hypothesis that they seriously overstated African-American support for the measure.

The person principally banging the drum is Andrew Sullivan who predicted in late September that Proposition 8's passage was a credible threat due to black evangelicals and who has been writing about the racial divide on gay rights for a couple of decades.

And, of course, religion is the reason - nothing else comes close as a predictor, certainly not race (or age).
 
Andrew, are you still arguing that "Barack Obama is almost certainly the cause of Proposition 8's passage"?
 
I should note that the above comment was meant for Ms. Whitfield.

Anthrophile, I read Shanikka's post on Daily Kos. After the tenth factual error or simple confusion about polls vs. census, I stopped reading. (I was also appalled at her condescending tone, considering that she clearly understands these issues no better than the people she's criticizing.) However, she did educate me on one point. I had no idea that some gay white males were engaging in racist rhetoric on DailyKos or anywhere else. Had I known that, I wouldn't have mentioned the issue at all.
 
Anthrophile, I said earlier:

"If African-Americans had not voted at all, it looks like Proposition 8 would probably have gone down to a very narrow defeat. This indicates that the larger than usual African-American turnout was not decisive, though the African-American vote was."

I had foolishly relied on other people's mathematics before doing it for myself (not a mistake I normally make) when I said that.
 
And, of course, religion is the reason - nothing else comes close as a predictor, certainly not race (or age).

Yet I can't help noticing that the first thing you blamed was race. Your initial post mentioned nothing at all about religion.

This is another article I've seen recommended, pointing out that outreach to the black community was lacking in the run-up; I include it for anyone who's interested.

My main point is this: some people are moving towards blaming black people for this horrible amendment, and they need to cut it out. Identifying a group as the villian is the exact thing that equal rights - you know, the thing that Prop 8 violates - is supposed to stop.
 
Yet I can't help noticing that the first thing you blamed was race. Your initial post mentioned nothing at all about religion.

Sorry. Are there people who weren't already aware that religious people are less likely to support gay marriage? As I said, had I known there were people engaging in racist rhetoric or identifying African-Americans as "villains," I would never have brought it up.
 
As an American currently in Canada, I share the massive disappointment. It looks like Florida, the state where I cast my absentee ballot, is passing a pre-emptive anti-same-sex-marriage amendment. That one's even getting the necessary 60% supermajority.

Canada has same-sex marriage, and has for quite a while. First by court order (in some provinces), and then federally by an act of Parliament.

The world hasn't ended. Dogs and cats aren't sleeping together in the streets, or whatever's supposed to happen. Existing opposite-sex marriages aren't diminished, degraded, or damaged. Churches aren't forced to conduct same-sex ceremonies, and Christians aren't being corralled with the cattle-prod of hate speech laws.

The only thing that's happened, in fact, is that forms refer to "spouse" rather than husband/wife. Even the marriage license applications refer to "applicant" and "co-applicant". It just makes sense.

But no, easily a majority of Americans are just plain scared. I don't understand it.

wv: alitallu -- A little known species of bird, known for its yodeling call.
 
Since I accidentally stepped into a minefield and since people have been talking about outreach efforts, allow me to make amends by suggesting an outreach effort which might work on evangelicals, regardless of race.

The problem with evangelicals is that they take the Bible seriously. It's not actually possible to either convert them to atheism or to try to convince them that they should ignore that silly old book of theirs (which works on less religious religious people).

But you can fight them with Scripture. The principal argument against homosexuality derives from Leviticus in the Hebrew Bible. There is Leviticus 18:22-23, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination" and Leviticus 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death." As is often pointed out, much of Leviticus is not practiced by Christians nowadays, but the Christians who maintain arguments against homosexuality are well aware of this. The Pauline theory is that Jesus overturned the Mosaic Law and Christians aren't required to follow it. However, they are required to follow the moral commandments of the Law, just not the parts of the Law that deal with ritual purity (like circumcision, eating unclean animals, etc.).

So what you have to convince evangelicals of is that the prohibitions on homosexuality concerned ritual purity and not moral purity. If it refers to ritual purity, then modern Christians don't have to follow it. I believe the argument that it only concerns ritual purity is a fairly easy, though not necessarily compelling, argument to make. For one thing, it is not intuitive that homosexuality is morally wrong. For a second, there are a number of prohibitions in the Hebrew Bible which are clearly aimed at maximizing procreation which are now generally viewed as part of ritual purity. For example, there are prohibitions against lying with a woman during menstruation or around that time (Leviticus 20:18). This is clearly aimed at population maximization and it isn't hard to make the link between this prohibition and the prohibition on homosexuality. Moreover, the original text might agree. In the above passages, the word translated as "abomination" and "detestable act" is toevah and is usually a cultic, not a moral, term. (Zimah is the moral term, referring to an act which is wrong in itself.) Importantly, the moral laws which were intended for all humanity (the Ten Commandments) was delivered before Leviticus. Leviticus was aimed specifically at Jews, in particular as a prohibition against the idolatry of the Canaanites.

I have convinced people with this argument in the past. (Despite my atheism, my training in medieval philosophy does come in handy. I would recommend coming fairly prepared.) If you can convince the right preachers with this argument (easier said than done, I know) - that homosexuality was forbidden purely for ritual purity reasons which was overturned by Christ's death on the cross, you could pick up a lot of votes for gay marriage pretty quickly.

Anybody familiar enough with Scripture to critique my argument and possibly make it stronger?
 
By the by, I don't think this argument can defeat Catholic opposition. While you might be able to convince them that homosexuality isn't a sin, you'd have a tough time convincing them on gay marriage so long as it's called marriage. For the Catholics, marriage is one of the seven sacraments. Protestants only recognize baptism and the Eucharist as sacraments. It is hard to fit homosexual marriage into the Pauline model of marriage as a sacrament, representing the union of Christ and Church.
 
For one thing, it is not intuitive that homosexuality is morally wrong.

Unfortunately, for a lot of people, it *is* intuitively obvious, for reasons varying from "Someone whose authority I respect says so" to "Slot A and Tab B are clearly designed for one purpose only."

And unfortunately, there is more to it than that. Gay marriage is one element of a larger "culture war," which includes a set of interlinked assumptions, including: (1) that the nuclear family is THE basic building block of any valid human society, (2) that the nuclear family IS, by definition, one man, one woman and their biological children, and (3) any society that does not privilege the nuclear family above all other possible associations of humans (like, for instance, friends, community interest groups, work groups, philanthropic associations, or romantic relationships that don't fit that model) MUST collapse into chaos and a complete lack of morality.

People often assume that this set of assumptions has some basis in the Bible, but in fact, it's only there if you read it into the actual texts. But since it's often promoted by religious preachers, it's assumed to be a valid religious conclusion.

Sigh.

Your biblical counter-argument is a good one, but it only addresses one of the issues, alas.

To their credit, I've been reading a few conservative religious commentators in the last few days who point out that it is not, in fact, their mandate to rule the world, nor to enforce their views on everyone else. But that seems to be a minority view.

Verification word is "ellob" which bears an unfortunate resemblance to "yob."
 
Many evangelicals do not in fact rely entirely or even primarily on the passage in Leviticus, since they consider that many of the Hebrew laws have been rescinded for Christians. (This is why it's not hard to find evangelicals munching ham-and-cheese sandwiches during Passover.) However, Romans 1:25-27 is the New Testament argument. I give unto thee the King James Version, because verily if the King James was good enough for Saint Paul, it's good enough for me: "Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."

They take this as evidence that that particular rule wasn't rescinded.

My verification word is "chemie," which should refer to a simple sheath-style lab coat worn by French chemists.
 
Chris, all of the arguments you give rely on reasoning, not on intuition. E.g. there are intuitive arguments against adultery (since we have an intuition that it is wrong to break one's promises), but I don't believe there are any intuitions against homosexuality. People who believe homosexuality is wrong are building upon other intuitions through a chain of reasoning. This makes their arguments much more vulnerable.

Dash, I do hear Romans brought up, though not as often as Leviticus. I agree, of course, that Romans has to be dealt with, since it comes from the authority of Saint Paul. (Some other Church Fathers also condemned homosexuality, but their views aren't as important as Saint Paul's.) I would rely on an exegesis. The word translated as "vile" above is atimias and means "socially unacceptable." In 2 Corinthians 6:8, Saint Paul applies the same word to himself for his commitment to Christ. Clearly he is not saying that his commitment to Christ is morally wrong. Similarly with "unseemly," the Greek word for which was aschemosyne which means "not according to form." Even this passage does not make it obvious that Paul meant to say that homosexuality is morally wrong. He could have used words which mean that and he did not. Romans, in general, is about healing the rifts between Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians by agreeing with the Jews that Gentiles are "unclean" (the context of the above passage), but then showing the Jews that they too have sinned, that purity issues in the law don't matter, and incline the Jewish Christians to acceptance of Gentile Christians. I think one can easily argue that, in this context, homosexuality was being used as a purity issue.

Certainly, though, you are correct that Romans is tougher to deal with than Leviticus because it is not part of the overturned Law. I don't regard it as obvious that Saint Paul thought homosexuality was morally wrong, but I don't think I could convince a determined believer that this view is correct. (Although, in any event, Saint Paul clearly believed that chastity was the highest sexual behavior of humans. This is undisputed.) Unlike Leviticus, I do believe a determined preacher can probably refute my view on Saint Paul. My suggestion would be to continue outreach to the next preacher since that one probably can't be convinced. I submit, however, that many can and that the key is not to treat them as enemies, since that only turns people off to the cause. (E.g. the repellent anti-Mormon commercial aired by No on Prop 8.)
 
My suspicion is that Biblical arguments alone, no matter what, aren't going to cut it. Different people interpret the same passages in such wildly divergent ways that there's always some piece of counter-evidence someone can bring up. The nits get pickier and pickier, but I doubt it'll change people's minds as much as experience - especially as a religion that prizes being hardline is also liable to be dogmatic and closed to unwelcome reinterpretation.

As I see it, the fundamental assumption is that there are safe units that have to be preserved, and that society is a matter of good insiders and bad outsiders. The most effective solution is to enlarge the circle of insiders; after all, only last month the same religious groups that a few generations ago would have argued it was against God's will for women to have the vote were praying for Sarah Palin to become Vice President. Once people are inside the circle, tribally-minded people become protective of them.

If I were arguing the case, I think I'd take the line that the central commandment is to love one another, and that any other consideration is secondary - that trying to oppose gay rights is straining out gnats and swallowing camels. More than that, though, I suspect appeals to common humanity are more persuasive. I'd talk about my gay friends not having the same rights as myself; how my friend Claire, who'll be a bridesmaid at our wedding and who's been incredibly supportive to us, whose parents are an outstanding marriage and who takes a genuine joy in the marriages of her friends, is not allowed to have what she rejoices at other people finding, for instance. When it comes down to specific cases, it's just not fair, and I think it's much easier to refute a Biblical argument than it is to look a fellow human being in the eye and say 'I don't think you should have the same rights as me.'

Emotion is the driving force of politics, and at the moment, suspicion of the unfamiliar is dominating compassion. I think we need to tap compassion as much as possible.
 
Um, gosh, thanks! You guys have been really supportive to me too, y'know. And seeing as I'm here, can I just say something that I think it's important to remember: this is only temporary. True, it's a setback. But it's like waves on a beach when the tide is coming up: the waves come in, they go out again. But the tide keeps rising. The watermark keeps getting higher. The people who are today arguing that we should be happy with civil partnerships are the very people who thought even civil partnership was an obscenity just a couple decades ago.

We're getting there. Never, ever forget that we are getting there.

Verification word: Crunos, which describes the sort of "Christian" who claims to believe in a God of love while preaching the politics of hate. It comes from two root words, "crucifixion" and "nostalgia", thus implying that such a "Christian" in fact feels a wistful longing for an era when dangerous troublemakers could be strung up and left to die.
 
Andrew (and others),

I'd forget about starting from a theological argument with evangelicals. They'll adjust the theology later, once they've made peace with the idea that the object of the law is not to enshrine their religious preferences in some regard. (They have done precisely this kind of theology-adjustment work regarding divorce, not so long ago anathema among evangelicals.)

By the way, here's a fairly detailed, if concise, description of why Prop. 8 passed.

(Verification word: saceds. Undoubtedly one of those awful words of the sort invented by corporations or government agencies to describe their programs. Possibly from sac(r), the root of "sacred" plus ed, clipped from "education." A special kind of instruction in religious concepts. Example, "we've got some serious saceds to do among California evangelicals to convince them that state acknowledgment of same-sex marriage is not inconsistent with their religious beliefs."
 
after all, only last month the same religious groups that a few generations ago would have argued it was against God's will for women to have the vote were praying for Sarah Palin to become Vice President.

Evangelicals were at the forefront of women's suffrage as they had been previously for abolition of slavery.
 
Evangelicals were at the forefront of women's suffrage as they had been previously for abolition of slavery.

I don't think those Evangelicals would embrace the people who claim moral and intellectual descent from them.

I'm talking about the same attitudes, not the same label. Religions always contain fine, compassionate people who fight hard to protect their beloved fellow human beings, and they always contain hardliners who are convinced that God exists to justify their way of life and punish those outside it. Evangelicals used to be the first kind of believer, and now they're the second. (At least, as a political bloc; undoubtedly there were mean Evangelicals a hundred years ago and there are certainly liberal ones now. People vary.)

Frederick Douglass, for instance, remarked that it was far worse to be the slave of a Christian than a secular master. Christians were more self-righteous, more punitive and harsher, because they were convinced that not just good luck but God's justice had put them in a position of great power over other people. Those masters were probably not Evangelicals - but that's the attitude we're seeing against gays today.

Religion is either a force of love or a force of hate. Which groups are moving in different direct changes over time, but it's the force of love faiths we need, whatever they're currently called.
 
Oh, and thanks, Dash, that's a good article.
 
Post a Comment



<< Home

Archives

July 2006   August 2006   September 2006   October 2006   November 2006   December 2006   January 2007   February 2007   March 2007   April 2007   May 2007   June 2007   July 2007   August 2007   September 2007   October 2007   November 2007   December 2007   January 2008   February 2008   March 2008   April 2008   May 2008   June 2008   July 2008   August 2008   September 2008   October 2008   November 2008   December 2008   January 2009   February 2009   March 2009   April 2009   May 2009   June 2009   July 2009   August 2009   September 2009   October 2009   November 2009   December 2009   January 2010   February 2010   March 2010   April 2010   June 2010   July 2010   August 2010   September 2010   October 2010   November 2010   December 2010   January 2011   February 2011   March 2011   April 2011   May 2011   June 2011   July 2011   August 2011   September 2011   October 2011   November 2011   December 2011   January 2012   February 2012   March 2012   April 2012   May 2012   June 2012   July 2012   August 2012   September 2012   October 2012   November 2012   December 2012   January 2013   February 2013   March 2013   April 2013   May 2013   June 2013   July 2013   August 2013   September 2013   October 2013   March 2014  

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?