Prop 8’s Failure


I tried to take a day to celebrate Barack Obama’s victory but it was hard.  It’s hard to be happy when the first constitutional amendment in US history is approved specifically to deny me, and roughly 300,000 other Californians, basic civil rights.  It’s hard to be happy when I think of 18,000 married couples waking up on November 5th to wonder if their marriages are valid.  It’s hard to be happy when a couple being married at a courthouse in Sacramento marriage was halted mid-ceremony.  Imagine that happening to you.  

I can’t help wondering what went wrong.  Who’s to blame?

Me– I didn’t do enough, I didn’t give enough, I couldn’t overcome my distaste of cold-calling to make phone calls.  I couldn’t face a conversation with a bigot, it scared me.  I’m demotivated because I don’t want to get married so maybe my commitment wasn’t strong enough.  I blame myself for not doing more.

Black & Latino Voters in LA County – You voted 2 to 1 for Prop 8.  Shame on you!  The church was used as an instrument to deny your civil rights for decades.  All racial minorities should be very wary of the erosion of church/state separation.  If you have religious concerns, read the language of the Supreme Court decision.  Did you bother to do that before voting yes?  It specifically protects the rights of churches, schools and parents who do not support gay marriage rights.  SHAME ON YOU!

The Mormon Church – Shame on you too.  You who fled across country to escape religious persecution.  You, whose founding father had 33 (that’s right, thirty three!) wives – making your opinion of marriage somewhat suspect.  Of all groups, LDS should be fearful of religious involvement in civil matters.  The way I see it is, after the religious right “wins” the battle against homosexuals (a fight led by the Mormon Church), you could be next.  Christian fundamentalists view the Mormon church as little more than a cult, and not at all Christian.

Many today are under the false impression that Mormonism is merely another Christian denomination, when in actuality, Mormon beliefs are not only unbiblical, but anti-Christian.

From Mormonism: Christian or Cult

Belief in the real Jesus Christ is the only way a man can receive forgiveness of sin and eternal life. The LDS, church in presenting a false Christ is, in fact, leading souls away from salvation and the real Jesus. They reject God’s truth and substitute another Jesus who does not exist and cannot save. Only those who believe in the Biblical Jesus Christ will go to heaven when they die. Those who put their trust in a false Christ will be eternally lost. Every true Child of God knows this, and that is why we try so hard to point men away from false churches, prophets, gods and Christs, that they may find God’s true Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, and be saved.

From Are Mormon’s Christian?: The Bible and LDS Scriptures Prove Conclusively that Mormons are Not Biblical Christians

You think it doesn’t matter what fundamentalist Christians think about Mormons?  It will when they start voting on your rights.

Apathetic / Poorly Educated Voters– Do you think I wanted to read the text of every measure on the ballot?  Did I want to go online and do research?  Did I want to take the time to be an educated voter?  Not so much.  We just got a Wii and that would have been a lot more fun.  But being an educated voter is my one job as a citizen and I do it.  So many of you voted incorrectly (yes when you meant no) because you hadn’t taken the time to understand.  Thousands more allowed the Mormon Church’s scare tactics to inform your vote.  They deliberately lied and mislead the people of California and you fell for it.

Evangelical Christians – You even scare other Christians.  Your position on gay marriage is consistent, so, aside from finding you freakish, cult-like and a threat to the constitution, your actions are understandable.  The Mormon church had to help you pass this amendment or it would not have won.  You’re no threat.


I, we, let religious fanatics determine our legal rights.  It won’t happen again.  This is not over.


19 Responses to Prop 8’s Failure

  1. Maddog says:

    The sheer hypocrisy of this post is unbelievable. You complain about having “religious fanatics” (a very negative slur) determine your legal rights, but you have no qualms about manipulating just four California Supreme Court justices impose your agenda over the majority of Californians — who have resoundingly rejected it at the ballot box, this time TWICE!

    Allowing people to redefine marriage to suit their sexual preferences or leanings (whether these were chosen or not) is NOT a right. if we allow this then we must allow marriage for other groups with different sexual attitudes. This means legalizing pedophile and incestuous marriages. Polygamy too. What would become of marriage then? Yet that is the logical conclusion of the justifications for same-sex marriage.

    If there is anyone who should be ashamed it should be YOU and all your colleagues who have sought to subvert the will of the people and undermine the very democracy you depend on. Such selfishness is truly reckless and irresponsible.

  2. As Martin Luther King, Jr. stated, “Let us realize the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice.”

    At one point in time, the “majority” of Americans believed that blacks should only be counted as 3/5 of a human being. At one point in time, the “majority” believed that women were too unsophisticated and stupid to vote. At one point in time, the “majority” of Americans decided that incarcerating thousands of Japanese Americans, with no due process and for no reason other than fear, was the right thing to do. In retrospect, it’s difficult for us to imagine how society could have conducted itself in this fashion at that point in time.

    Sometimes, the “majority” is just wrong. That’s one of the reasons courts are entrusted to protect the Constitution. Brown v. Board surely was not a popular decision, but it was the right thing to do. Although the fight will go on, I believe that years from now, people will look back at this point in time and be appalled at the prejudices levied against the LGBT community. Until then, keep up the good fight.

  3. achievementgap says:

    Maddog, this post made me laugh out loud.

    “Religious fanatics” is a negative slur? Whatever?! It’s my blog, don’t read it if you don’t like it.

    And what is up with everybody’s confusion on the role of the courts. Courts historically and regularly overturn the opinions of a majority opinion when that opinion is unconstitutional. It’s their job. Go back to civics class.

    “Cases” in point:

    Loving v. Virgina
    Brown v. Board of Education

    And on the reverse side, Dred Scot v. US. Most people believe that Dred Scot, while it upheld a majority opinion, was a truly terrible decision. The court failed in its duty to protect a minority group and uphold the constitution.

    Lastly, maddog, get the basic facts straight It is Prop 8 which redfines marriage in the Constitution. It’s like the first line in the amendment?? Did you read it? It’s not the LGBT community and its supporters amending the constitution and redefining marriage. The constitution actually said nothing about marriage and gender. Prop 8 redefines it to do just that.

  4. achievementgap says:

    Right on Alexis! Thanks.

  5. Maddog says:

    You seem to have a problem getting your logic straight. The four justices attempted to redefine marriage as had been recognized by the state (although not mentioned in the Constitution) for a very long time. Prior to that, were same-sex marriages legal in California? There you have the answer, and it just points out that your thinking is way off base.

    And I noticed that all you did was rant and could not refute the argument I gave same-sex marriage. But that is typical of your activism. When you don’t have an argument, you just get nasty. That may browbeat some people into silence, but its stupidity is obvious.

    Years from now, people will wonder how they let a minority with clearly twisted reasoning and even more dangerous sexual proclivities so dominate the political and cultural landscape. People will eventually come to their senses and realize the objective moral error in homosexual practices. And no, I do not hold the view that simply having such tendencies is in itself sinful. Neither does my Church. Acting in accordance with such tendencies, however, is another matter.

    I doubt if you will even notice the nuance in that last one. To you, anyone who disagrees with you on this issue is a bigot. Now that’s the REAL BIGOTRY.

  6. Mike says:

    1) I would like to point out that, according to an exit poll taken by CNN, 61% of California voters under the age of 30 voted against Proposition 8. Therefore, it is unlikely that “People will eventually come to their senses and realize the objective moral error in homosexual practices.” The present may belong to anti-gay activists, but the future belong to us.

    2) The idea that legalizing same sex marriage will lead to legalized polygamy and incest is misguided. So far, none of the countries that have legalized gay marriage have gone on to legitimize those practices. Further, almost everyone can make the distinction between a consensual gay relationship and a pedophilic one.

    3) One of the ideas enshrined in the U.S. Constitution is the idea that minority rights deserve protection from the majority. The idea that the rights of gay people should be put to a popular vote was absurd in the first place.

    4) Maddog, you do a great job of deriding other people’s arguments without addressing them head on. I would like to see your response to the point that Brown vs. Board and Loving vs. Virginia were also the products of judicial activism, in which the will of the majority was also subverted by a handful of judges.

  7. achievementgap says:

    Maddog – Your second comment primarily accuses me of ranting which I agree I do (again, my blog, my right), and that I did not refute your argument against gay marriage. To recap my responses to you:

    You argue that the term “religious fanatics” is a negative slur. I agreed. I just don’t care. If you find my blog, my rants or my opinions offensive you are welcome to tell me so, and/or to quit reading.

    You argue that same-sex marriage proponents wish to redefine marriage. I did not ignore your argument, I disagreed with you. The result of Prop 8 is that the constitution will be amended to specifically define marriage as between a man and a woman. If I understand you correctly, you believe historical precedent has defined marriage, and that same-sex marriage advocates wish to change that. We disagree; I did not ignore your argument.

    You argue that four Supreme Court justices were manipulated into making a decision. As I was not part of the case, I do not know if the justices were “manipulated” into making a decision. I suspect they would take offense to the suggestion that they could be manipulated. Even if they are susceptible to manipulation, the California Supreme Court leans in a moderate to conservative direction so it is unlikely they could be manipulated on this volatile issue. Here is some information about our Supreme Court:

    From Morris Thurston
    Harvard educated legal scholar and Brigham Young University Professor

    … [as to] The gratuitous comment concerning “activist judges” seems to be framed as an appeal to fear and paranoia. In fact, today’s justices on both the California Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court can hardly be called “activist.” Six of the seven justices of the California Supreme Court were appointed by Republican governors; seven of the nine justices of the United States Supreme Court were appointed by Republican presidents. Most legal scholars would agree that they are moderate to conservative in their leanings and have a healthy respect for constitutional principles. The California Supreme Court has a high reputation throughout the land. A recent study indicates that its decisions are approved of and followed by out-of-state courts far more than are the decisions of any other supreme court in the United States.

    Ronald M. George, the chief justice of the California Supreme Court, who wrote the opinion for the majority in the marriage cases, is a judicial moderate who was never considered to be an activist judge. He has an outstanding scholarly background (Princeton and Stanford) and worked as a prosecutor immediately after graduating from law school. He was appointed a Superior Court judge at the early age of 32 by Republican Governor Ronald Reagan. Though young, he quickly gained a reputation as fair-minded, insightful, hard working and tough on crime. He was widely praised for his handling of the difficult trial of the Hillside Strangler, Angelo Buono. He rose in the ranks of judges until he was appointed to the California Supreme Court by Republican Governor Pete Wilson.

    As Justice George considered the marriage cases, the decision “weighed heavily” on his mind. He remembered a long ago trip he made with his European immigrant parents through the American South. There, the signs warning “No Negro” or “No colored” left “quite an indelible impression on me,” he recalled. As a judicial conservative, it would have been safest for him to vote against the petitioners and avoid the backlash that he knew would come But, as he put it in an interview with the Los Angeles Times, “I think there are times when doing the right thing means not playing safe.”

    The function of judges is to evaluate cases before them and apply constitutional principles to assure that minorities, as well as majorities, receive justice. In controversial cases they are bound to anger some portion of the electorate regardless of how they vote. Their unenviable job is to ignore public opinion and apply the law as they see it. [emphasis mine] Some decisions are so difficult that reasonable minds can differ. The Supreme Court decision in the marriage cases was that sort of decision. Nevertheless, four of the seven justices on what is considered to be a moderate to conservative court agreed on the verdict that was rendered. This decision cannot be written off as merely the whim of “activist judges.”

    You argued the Supreme Court decision overturning the 2000 ballot measure banning same sex marriage was a bad decision because it went against the will of the majority – Both I and another reader pointed out the historical context for courts overruling majority opinions. Decisions that, in retrospect, are absolutely correct but went against the will of the majority of the people at the time. The fact that courts have the right to do this is part of our system of political checks and balances. It is actually ingenious and almost unique in the world. Our courts protect minority groups.

    You argued that homosexual sex is a sin (if not homosexuals themselves) – Well clearly I cannot argue that. You are basing your argument on a religious belief I do not hold. What I can argue, and have argued is that we have a separation of church and state in this country. It is one of our founding principles. Until we become a religious state your religious concerns cannot influence political/legal decisions. That’s the way it was set up by our founding fathers, and for very good reason.

    You argue that I am a bigot – The definition of bigotry is “a person who is prejudiced in their views and intolerant of the opinions of others.” Since Prop 8 was introduced to the ballot in June, I have become very familiar with the arguments of Mormons and evangelical Christians. My opinion is based on my experience and knowledge, not false assumptions (therefore not totally prejudiced). As far as tolerance, I have allowed you and other opponents of same sex marriage to comment freely on my blog. You are arguing with me, on my blog, and calling me names. I’m allowing you to. That is not the act of a bigot.

    Last point, here is one argument I did not refute.

    You argue that legalizing same-sex marriage will open a door to more non-traditional marriage types being legalized – You’re right, I missed that argument. To quote you:

    if we allow [same-sex marriage] then we must allow marriage for other groups with different sexual attitudes. This means legalizing pedophile and incestuous marriages. Polygamy too. What would become of marriage then? Yet that is the logical conclusion of the justifications for same-sex marriage.

    That is absurd, offensive and barely merits argument. But I’ll take a whack at it.

    Pedophile – Pedophila is a psychological disorder and is illegal and socially “taboo” in virtually every society on earth. We wouldn’t force a victim to marry her rapist, why would we force a child to marry her abuser.

    From (Medical Library) American Psychiatric Association Diagnostic Criteria for Pedophilia:

    Pedophilia, included in the American Psychiatric Association Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) since 1968, continues to be classified as a mental disorder. The DSM is the standard classification of mental disorders used by mental health professionals and provides clear, objective descriptions of mental illnesses, based upon scientific research. Pedophilia is categorized in the DSM-IV-TR as one of several paraphilic mental disorders. The essential features of a Paraphilia are recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors that generally involve nonhuman subjects, children, or other non-consenting adults, or the suffering or humiliation of oneself or one’s partner.

    An adult who engages in sexual activity with a child is performing a criminal and immoral act and this is never considered normal or socially acceptable behavior. [emphasis mine] Darrel A. Regier, M.D.,M.P.H., Director, American Psychiatric Association’s Division of Research states, “there are no plans or processes set up that would lead to the removal of the Paraphilias from their consideration as legitimate mental disorders.”

    Not to mention the fact that children and teens under the age of 18 are not allowed to marry without parental permission in all but one state.

    From, Marriage Laws in the US by Age – – US Teen Marriage License Laws

    In the United States, all but one state requires that a couple be 18 in order to marry without parental permission. Nebraska sets the age of majority at 19. Although a few states will waive this requirement if there is a pregnancy, teenage couples may still have to have court approval.

    Incest – One very common understanding of the word “incest” is the sexual abuse of a child by an adult member of his/her family. There is no fear these kind of marriages would take place. Incest of this kind is a crime of horrific proportion. The man (it is most likely a man) petitioning to marry his minor female relative would be arrested not granted a marriage license. It is disturbing that you would draw a comparison between two consenting same-sex adults entering into marriage with incest; so disturbing that I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are referring to other, adult family members intermarrying – not the abuse of children. There are already laws regulating family members intermarrying. The laws vary from state to state and are primarily related to concerns about reproduction not the moral/religious nature of the relationship.

    Polygamy – This is so typically male… personally I think if Christ made a televised announcement polygamy is now biblical and should be legalized, men would break down and weep with joy. You’re not worried about polygamy, you’re worried about polyandry (which is when a wife takes several husbands) but that’s beside the point. I actually have no problem with polygamy. Who consenting adults want to marry is their own business. I would be concerned about our legal code being rewritten to protect the rights of the wives and children, but other than that I have no concern.

  8. slinkyfive says:

    Well said a-gap, both in post and in comments—you said like everything I was planning on writing to Maddog much better than I could have. Damn you.

    Bah. It’s too late at night for rational debate anyway. Boo on rationality. More angry and crazy rants.

  9. Maddog says:

    You said: Pedophila is a psychological disorder and is illegal and socially “taboo” in virtually every society on earth.

    You seem to forget that homosexuality was once considered a form of psychological disorder at one time too. So you are now engaging in a form of discrimination against pedophiles, if we accept your silly argument.

    You make the mistake against incest. People of course see incest as horrible. But they also once saw homosexuality as horrible. UIf we allow same-sex marriage, then the logical basis is laid for incestuous marriages. it will take decades before incestuous marriage is seriously proposed and considered, but your tinkering with traditional marriage will make it logically easier. So your argument is still fatally flawed.

    Also for the record: If you’re selfish enough to accept polygamy, I am not. I do not accept it whether done by a male or a female. I have seen too many women and men hurt by polyamorous individuals.

  10. achievementgap says:

    I “seem to forget that homosexuality was once considered a form of psychological disorder at one time….”

    And, courts once considered blacks as 3/5 of a human, Romans once considered Christianity heresy, Americans once thought women were too stupid to vote, early humans thought the earth was flat and the sun rotated around it. The human race has evolved, mercifully – and the APA dropped homosexuality from the DSM in the early 70s.

    “You are now engaging in a form of discrimination against pedophiles.”

    Uh, yeah, maddog, I am. In fact I am so discriminatory, my opposition to the death penalty gets a bit shakey when it comes to pedophiles. Even other criminals discriminate against pedophiles. Pedophelia is not just a disorder and illegal, it is repugnant. As people, we lose our moral compass around the issue of pedophila and want to do things like beat Richard Allen Davis to death. Oh, excuse me, I’m ranting again.

    There were some questions put to you by myself, Alexis and Mike. If you care to answer them, I’ll post your response. If you would like to continue comparing incest and pedophila to marriage between two consenting adults… I don’t know what I or anyone else can say to you.

  11. Maddog says:

    Achievement gap said: And, courts once considered blacks as 3/5 of a human,…

    That’s precisely my point.Claiming that pedophilia is a psychological disorder doesn’t work because that is the point that pedophiles contest.>/b> A declaration by some medical societies only shows their adherence to political correctness, and is temporary. What if, in the future, the same medical society succumbs to political pressure and declares pedophilia is no longer a disorder? Then your argument falls apart.

    Pedophiles also contest the “age of consent” concept just as homosexuals contest that sexual orientation should be a factor in marriage. Those who favor incest will make similar arguments.

    The bottom line is that the arguments for justifying same-sex marriage are logically the same ones that justify other types of “marriages”. You have tried — and failed — to show otherwise.

    The logical conclusion is that if we allow same-sex marriages, we set the logic for all these other types of “marriages” as well. And that is why we should NOT allow same-sex marriage.

  12. Mike says:

    Your arguments are based on the notion that, because morality is (to a degree) relative, if we begin to revise our ideas about homosexuals, we will set the stage for a slippery slope that will lead to tolerance for other, more despicable groups. You give the human mind too little credit. Psychology studies have shown that, as tolerance for homosexuality has increased, tolerance for pedophilia and incest in the western world have not. We know that pedophilia harms children, and that consensual sodomy does not (provided proper protections is used). Your argument suggests that we do not know where to draw the line when it comes to our tolerance for certain sexual practises. But all the evidence to date suggests that we do.

  13. Maddog says:

    I would dispute that and argue that the very fact that many have come to accept homosexuality is clear evidence that “we do not know where to draw the line when it comes to our tolerance for certain sexual practises.”

    Another related story is toleration of abortion. It was once thought to be a heinous crime, but now some people think it’s a right. That is because the twisted logic for its justification was set up by acceptance of contraception and the obfuscation of the idea of when human life begins.

    Homosexuality was once seen as despicable by almost everyone and even considered a a psychological disorder. Homosexuality, incest, abortion, pedophilia, and euthanasia were practiced in early times too. Attitudes towards some of these have already changed — for some people anyways. Unfortunately, they are enough to make such despicable practices appear as “rights”.

    Ultimately, same-sex marriage will also set up the rational justifications for other sexual practices. That is why this cycle must be stopped now.

  14. Maddog, your slippery slope argument would support the continuation of slavery and the relegation of women to child-rearing and homemaking. Heaven forbid that black people and women have “rights.” How despicable!

  15. achievementgap says:


    Here’s an idea. How about if you compose a little “note to self?” A reminder or to-do list, if you will, because at this point inquiring minds would like to know a thing or two about your positions on other topics – such as the nature of democracy, the relationship between the courts and our legislative system. At this point, we are all very clear about how the slippery slope to pedophile marriage works. But, there remain some unanswered questions – and, frankly, the suspense is killing us. Here’s a sample (of one possible To Do List):

    Maddog’s To Do List:

    1. First, congratulate myself on wearing Diane down on the whole pedophile argument. Her lack of continued engagement on this issue surely means she has come to realize her sexual morality is roughly that of a pedophile – and her so-called “rights” are equivalent to legalizing child-rape. Take a moment to savor my victory!

    2. Diane, Alexis and Mike are totally and completely wrong about the court’s history of overturning the opinions of majorities. Make the time to compose a reply to them.

    2. Start with Brown v. Board of Education, Loving v. Virginia. Bad decisions. Democracy undone!

    3. Move on to Dred Scot and discuss why, when the court had an opportunity to act on behalf of the rights of slaves, they did not – because (and this is the important part) the court was supporting the majority opinion of the people. The majority of people had spoken. Democracy defended!

    4. Since she gave up on Pedophilia consider broaching the subject of bestiality. I’ve heard that works as an argument against gay marriage. Marriage between a man and a hippopotamus? Preposterous. Oh, god, I’ve thought of something worse! Marriage between a man and two hippopotami!! Polygamous bestiality. Lord save us! Ok, scratch this argument. Don’t want to give them any ideas!

    Deo Vindice!

  16. Maddog says:

    Alexis, your statement is non sequitur. The premises of my argument do not lead to continuation of slavery. I have pointed out the folly of redefining marriage based on sexual preference/orientation. How you can link that to allowing slavery is quite silly, to say the least.

    Achievementgap, you seem to forget that the history of courts overturning majorities is hardly free of mistakes. Your own arguments can be used to advocate the opposite of what you claim. So all you have done is show how inconclusive your examples are. Try to come up with something worth responding to.

    I’m still waiting for you to come up with at least a halfway decent refutation of my main argument. In case you can’t remember it though all your ranting, here it is again.

    “Allowing people to redefine marriage to suit their sexual preferences or leanings (whether these were chosen or not) is NOT a right. if we allow this then we must allow marriage for other groups with different sexual attitudes. This means legalizing pedophile and incestuous marriages. Polygamy too. What would become of marriage then? Yet that is the logical conclusion of the justifications for same-sex marriage.”

    If you can’t come up with something, just say so. Don’t take too long though. It makes you look silly.

  17. Mike says:

    I have already made my argument that people will know when a line has been crossed. As I have said already, psychological studies indicate that, as tolerance for homosexuality has grown, tolerance for other taboo sexual practices has not. If you like, Maddog, I can probably find an Internet link to one or more of these studies. Because of these studies, I have faith that we will not extend marriage rights to groups (like pedophiles and the incestuous) that do not cherish mature consent.

    I am pretty sure that this debate is getting to be a bit foolish. Both sides are succumbing to ad hominem attacks, and given how partisan everyone is (including myself), it is unlikely that this debate will change minds. Perhaps this back-and-forth is getting to be a bit futile.

  18. Maddog says:

    Mike, I sincerely hope and pray that you are absolutely right in your assessment that “people will know when a line has been crossed”. I hope we will never even have to come to that. I truly do.

    But recent trends in the past decade give me cause to worry.

    The Problem of Pedophilia

    “The American Psychological Association did not denounce the positions advanced within the that journal. In fact, just recently, the A.P.A. published a new, major study (2) written by one of those same Journal of Homosexuality writers.

    This latest article appears in the A.P.A.’s own prestigious Psychological Bulletin. It provides an overview of all the research studying the harm resulting from childhood sexual abuse.

    The authors’ conclusion? That childhood sexual abuse is on average, only slightly associated with psychological harm–and that the harm may not be due to the sexual experience, but to the negative family factors in the children’s backgrounds. When the sexual contact is not coerced, especially when it is experienced by a boy and is remembered positively, it may not be harmful at all.”

    This kind of creeping acceptance — in fact, led by some parts of the homosexual community — has me worried. I do not expect this to change your mind. Let’s forget about that and agree to disagree. But I do hope it will give you reason to worry, even a little bit. Better to be prepared, wouldn’t you agree?

  19. Maddog says:

    Please forgive my formatting errors. The last paragraph in the previous should be OUTSIDE of the quoted section. It is my comment to Mike. My apologies.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: