Category: marriage equality

Categories
Education marriage equality News Politics

The Wide Left Turn

First it was marriage equality. Now it’s the minimum wage. And prison reform. And some lefty laboratories in cities across the country. It’s not a sharp turn to the left as many had anticipated with Obama’s election in 2008. It’s a wide turn, and the country’s already done the first hand-over-hand on the cultural-political wheel.

If you haven’t seen the Frontline series on American prisons, please go their post-haste and watch what you can. The growth of the prison population in this country is staggering, and is a direct result of the conservative policies that created minimum sentences and the mandated arrests of millions of low-level and non-violent offenders, most of whom were males of color. Pair that with the creation of laws that, in some states, treated 12 year-olds as adults, and the results are explosive. We built prisons, then made sure we filled them up.

That’s changing. Many states, such as Kentucky, are trying to reform and rewrite their legal codes to provide the kind of care that young, at-risk juveniles and older, clearly sick men and women need in order to avoid jail time. One of the stories on the program shows a clearly distressed young women who needs counseling, medication, emotional support and a mentor if she is to thrive as a citizen. Otherwise, she’s going to wind up as a ward of the state and she might commit a violent act against someone. Another story shows a 67 year old addict who’s been released from jail to a halfway house with nothing. No money, no prospects, no clothes other than the sweats on his body. And he’s supposed to get a job? Go on welfare or food stamps (that the GOP wants to cut more)?

And while we were spending all of this money on being punitive, the right wing also told us that we needed to spend less on schools and lower taxes that paid for needed government services. Spending more on prisons and less on schools has had a direct impact on our culture. But as I said, that’s changing.

There are other signs of a wide left turn. Minimum wages are going up in some states. In New Jersey, the people voted to raise the wage over the objections of Governor Christie. Today’s vote to try and raise the national wage ended in a Republican-led filibuster, which will show up in Democratic ads come the fall. The national reactions to comments from Donald Sterling and Cliven Bundy shows that, although there are still racists in the United States, they will not be tolerated as they were before. Courts are striking down voter ID laws, most recently in Wisconsin, which is a welcome sign for democracy.

We still have work to do, and there will be setbacks, but slowly and surely, ideas that for years were ridiculed as soft and unworkable are seeing the light of day.

A left turn indeed.

Register your comments at www.facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives and on Twitter @rigrundfest

Categories
marriage equality Politics Womens Right

Exploring the sex obsession within right wing politics.

Hello Ezkool readers, thank you for reading my first blog post here.  I have been promising Ezra an article for a while and am happy to finally get this online.  Please note, I write long and as such like to source my articles where best I can.  Which is why you will see numbers after quotes and at the bottom of the article sources.  There are also a number of sources linked directly within the piece.

————————————

Two comments caught my attention over the past few days. The first came from Tea Party favourite Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) who linked ‘gay marriage’ with bestiality:

“It’s kind of like marriage when you say it’s not a man and a woman any more. Then why not have three men and one woman, or four women and one man, or why not somebody has a love for an animal? There is no clear place to draw the line once you eliminate the traditional marriage.” [1]

And the other came from Oscar winning actor Jeremy Irons who wondered in gay marriage would see fathers marry their sons to avoid inheritance taxes:

“Could a father not marry his son?” Even when it was pointed out to him that incest is illegal Irons carried on unabated “It’s not incest between men”, because “incest is there to protect us from inbreeding, but men don’t breed.”

I’m not sure of the political affiliation of Mr Irons, but his comments are widely held beliefs by many outspoken right wing politicians/supporters, when trying to defend against the right of gay men and women to be included under the umbrella of marriage and equal human rights. What both Irons and Gohmert fail to, or don’t bother to see is that marriage is seen to be the bonding of a relationship between consenting adults – the impetuous being on “consenting“. So Gohmert’s slippery slope argument that same sex marriage will suddenly see people marrying their dogs is false – a dog can not consent. And in cases of incest, it is often the case that there is a level of abuse and therefore not consensual. That and the fact that is taboo.

As a marriage equality advocate – and a happily married straight woman, I have never seen any of my friends or fellow advocates, make the argument that if we have so-called “gay marriage” the next step is incest, bestiality, pedophilia, polygamy, etc acceptance. The reason being is, sensible, common sense individuals understand that what we advocate is the civil rights of consenting adults and never the abuse of animals, children or society. Yet, from DOMA’s first inception, throughout Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Prop 8, and the recent Supreme Court cases, without fail, so called traditional marriage advocates can not help themselves with going from consensual adults to marrying your dog or child etc.

In no state or country where “gay marriage” or “equal rights” have been made law of the land has bestiality and pedophilia become recognized and legal in law.  This argument seems to be solely the twisted mindset of certain people with anti-gay agendas.  Which leads me to ask the question, are these people actually safe to have in society with that kind of sickness running around their heads?

The Daily Show’s Jon Stewart berated the Republicans who always seem to go from gay sex to bestiality on his show this week:

“What is it with you people and the animal-fucking?… I don’t understand how your minds always go there. Like, then they’ll just remove the law of fucking animals. Is that the only thing that has been holding you back? ‘Oh, wow, look at that goat, if only I wouldn’t get in trouble.”

Since the new rise of the extreme right, there has been without fail, an almost weekly sex based obsession in legislation – take for example the “war on Women” which at it’s root again is about sex. Case in point, Sandra Fluke. Her testimony about the the Conscience Clause exceptions in healthcare, to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, prompted talk show host Rush Limbaugh to launch a multi-day campaign of hate, which included labelling Fluke as a “slut” for what he saw as contraceptive pills, equating sex:

“[Fluke] essentially says that she must be paid to have sex—what does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She’s having so much sex she can’t afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex.” [3]

The fact is, Fluke never said such a thing. Her testimony centered around a friend who needed contraceptive pills to help with polycystic ovary syndrome, and the the lack of contraception coverage in Georgetown University. But it didn’t stop the onslaught and thus a myth was born, which carries on to this day – to many on the right, especially those with influence (politicians, talk show hosts, writers etc), the debate about contraceptive healthcare became about sex. As Rachel Maddow put it in an amusing rebuttal “I think that Rush Limbaugh thinks you take a birth control pill to avoid getting pregnant each time you have sex, so the more times you have sex the more birth control pills you need,” She explained further. “You just take one pill every day …. It’s a prescription deal … you don’t need more birth control to keep you not pregnant for more sex.” [4]

But as far as the right were concerned, contraceptives meant ‘slut’. Contraceptives meant you were sleeping with people left, right and center, and basically had no control over yourselves except to satisfy your slutty urges.

Continuing on the vein of the “War on Women” are the increasingly oppressive state laws being enacted by Republicans, to limit abortion access. I might like to remind readers, abortion access is and remains protected under the Constitution, something that Republican led states might want to remember in their selective love of the Constitution. Their laws are also motivated by bizarre ideas about sex.

The main argument from abortion deniers, or so called “pro-lifers” is women who get abortions are sluts, who can’t keep their legs crossed even those who are pregnant through rape or incest. Todd Atkins who was deposed in November 2012, is infamous for claiming “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.” [5] The emphasis should be dear reader, on “legitimate rape”, with the underlying current of suggestion being if it’s rape you wouldn’t get pregnant, therefore if you are pregnant, and seeking an abortion, you must be lying about being raped and a slut. Atkin’s comment fed into the idea of victim blaming, where people often think a rape victim – and more so in the cases of female victims of rape – that they somehow “asked for it”. For example, if the victim was drunk, she asked for it, the victim had more than one past sexual experiences, she is a slut therefore asked for it, or if the victim wore a skirt with a length shorter than the knee (okay a little sarcasm there), she asked for it.

Atkin was not alone in his thinking – Vice President hopeful Paul Ryan saw rape as another method of conception: “I’m very proud of my pro-life record, and I’ve always adopted the idea that, the position that the method of conception doesn’t change the definition of life.” [6] Pennsylvania Senate candidate Tom Smith, equated consensual sex with rape, when his daughter became pregnant out of wedlock.[7]

What each case showed, was an obsession to debase the argument down to a level which distorts the true issue. It also showed a very worrying and unhealthy way the right wing viewed sex.

Which brings me back to the arguments used against same sex marriage and homophobia in general.

In 2010, I wrote a piece for my opinion blog I had at the time, in which I looked at the “obsession with sex especially with DADT” [8] The article is still online so feel free to read the full argument. However to summarize for this piece, I was looking at how those who supported keeping DADT, would use slippery slope arguments, often based on a notion that gay men and women were uncontrollable sexual animals, just waiting for DADT to be repealed in order to jump on their poor, unsuspecting straight comrades. As a gay friend of mine said at the time “What is it with this idea that homophobic people have, that we are looking to jump their bones? Talk about being so full of themselves!“.

In the blog post I wrote then, I pointed out about DADT “The Right seem to me to be especially caught up on the sexual element of gay relationships instead of what this is really about – not having to lie about who you are, not having to make up a story about your partner, just so you don’t get kicked out of the job you have decided to do.”

The Family Research Council, designated a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center for their anti gay rhetoric, said at the time, gay inclusion in the military would lead to gays raping straights. FRC Senior Fellow for Policy Studies Peter Sprigg, was heard to say “We are today releasing an analysis of publicly available documents which show that homosexuals in the military are three times more likely to commit sexual assaults than heterosexuals are relative to their numbers,” Sprigg said. “We believe this problem would only increase if the current law against homosexuality…were to be repealed.” [9]

Forget the fact that gay men and women have always served in the military, just at that time without the ability to do so openly, the idea proposed by FRC was gay people can’t control themselves. It’s something the FRC use even today when it comes to frankly anything to do with gay men and women. Here’s just a smattering of quotes:

“This is another attempt by the homosexual lobby to indoctrinate children as young as kindergarten in the homosexual lifestyle. Young people who are sexually confused need the facts about homosexuality. They need to know that research shows they aren’t `born gay,”

“Gaining access to children has been a long-term goal of the homosexual movement.”

“Acceptance Of Homosexuality Will Result In More Unwanted Pregnancies. “

All the above statements – and more – can be found at Media Matters Political Correction here: http://politicalcorrection.org/factcheck/200910020001 and Right Wing Watch: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/family-research-council

Slippery slope arguments are nothing new. It is disturbing how the same or rather similar agreements were used to protest against interracial marriages and relationships. The idea that marriage would be somehow debased, watered down or loose it meaning were used up until the case of Loving went to the Supreme Court. These arguments are still used today, this time for gay marriage.

There are many on the right who believe that gay people are defined by the sex they have, unlike straight people who’s partnerships are defined by the relationships they have and sex – what they do in the bedroom – is by the by.  Anti-gay advocates believe gay men and women are incapable of day to day relationships.  I’m not sure in this instance if the rhetoric is pushed by homophobic ideology or jealousy of the constant sex they believe gay men and women are always having.  And this is without even beginning to look at the points they make that gay people are not created by God, but woe betide anyone who suggests heterosexuals choose their “lifestyle”. Or that if gay men and women are permitted to “marry” straight men and women will be tripping over themselves to take part in this “fad” just because they can.  And lets remember to play a violin for all those straight marriages which will crumble under the weight of “gay marriage” and not be able to survive the supposed “redefinition” – and of course all that gay sex – you know the anal only gay men and women partake in (Anal Sex More Popular Than Possibly Expected Among Heterosexual Couples).

The simple fact is, relationships are not defined by sex, and neither will gay rights mean an onslaught of laws legalizing bestiality, pedophilia etc.  Women use contraception for more means than just preventing pregnancy and just because a woman gets an abortion does not make her a slut.  Neither is a woman asking for it in any way shape or form.  Gay people are not chomping at the bit to hump their straight friends/colleagues or comrades in war, and neither is sex all that defines their relationship.  It is not the left and equal rights advocates who obsess about the sex lives of people, nor is it equal rights advocates who suggest that once we get “gay rights” will we be advocating the rights of NAMBLA – yes I’m looking at you Dr Ben Carson.

Sources:

[1] http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/louie-gohmert-gay-marriage-comments-89582.html#ixzz2PVjuLutK

[2] http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/04/04/jeremy-irons-would-gay-marriage-fathers-marrying-sons-avoid-inheritance-tax-video_n_3012356.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

[3] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/29/rush-limbaugh-sandra-fluke-slut_n_1311640.html

[4] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/03/rachel-maddow-rush-limbaugh-birth-control-sandra-fluke_n_1318354.html

[5] http://fox2now.com/2012/08/19/the-jaco-report-august-19-2012/

[6] http://gawker.com/5937880/paul-ryan-refers-to-rape-as-a-method-of-conception

[7] http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/08/pennsylvania-tom-smith-senate-pregnancy-rape-unwed-daughter.php?ref=fpa

[8] http://viewsacrossthepond.wordpress.com/2010/09/28/the-rights-obssession-with-sex-especially-with-dadt/

[9] http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/05/family-research-council-end-of-dadt-means-more-gay-rape-in-the-military.php

Categories
marriage equality Politics

Senator Claire McCaskill Supports Marriage Equality

On her Tumble page, the Democratic Senator wrote;

“And now abide faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love. I Corinthians 13

“The question of marriage equality is a great American debate. Many people, some with strong religious faith, believe that marriage can only exist between a man and a woman. Other people, many of whom also have strong religious faith, believe that our country should not limit the commitment of marriage to some, but rather all Americans, gay and straight should be allowed to fully participate in the most basic of family values.

“I have come to the conclusion that our government should not limit the right to marry based on who you love. While churches should never be required to conduct marriages outside of their religious beliefs, neither should the government tell people who they have a right to marry.

“My views on this subject have changed over time, but as many of my gay and lesbian friends, colleagues and staff embrace long term committed relationships, I find myself unable to look them in the eye without honestly confronting this uncomfortable inequality. Supporting marriage equality for gay and lesbian couples is simply the right thing to do for our country, a country founded on the principals of liberty and equality.

“Good people disagree with me. On the other hand, my children have a hard time understanding why this is even controversial. I think history will agree with my children.”

Categories
marriage equality Politics

Hillary Clinton Comes Out In Support Of Marriage Equality – Video

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and front-runner for the Democratic nominee for President in 2016, has now formally followed the path of many other leading Democrats, including President Obama, in supporting marriage for LGBT Americans. In the video below, Mrs. Clinton explains her reasons.

For America to continue leading in the world, there is work we must do here at home. That means investing in our people, our economy, our national security. It also means working everyday as citizens, as communities, as a country. To live up to our highest ideals and continue our long march to a more perfect Union.

LGBT Americans are our colleagues, our Teachers, our Soldiers, our friends, our loved ones. And they are full and equal citizens and deserve the rights of citizenship. That includes marriage.

That is why I support for lesbian and gay couples.

Video

Categories
marriage equality Music Tid Bits

“This I Promise You” By Chris Hassett – A Tribute To Marriage Equality

One of my Facebook friends from California sent me this video and asked me to share it. Just in time for Valentines,  Chris Hassett pays tribute to marriage equality with his very own song, This I Promise You.

Enjoy!

Categories
marriage equality Mitt Romney Politics

Gay Veteran To Mitt Romney – “You Will Never Be My President!” – Video

Mitt Romney was in the restaurant. He strolled over to a table and sat down next to a man who just happened to be a veteran… a gay veteran. Seeing Mr. Romney sitting next to him, the veteran asked Mr. Romney a question that was of importance to him.

“How do you feel about marriage equality Mr. Romney?”

“I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman,” Romney happily responded, unaware that he was talking to a gay man. He apparently expected the elderly man to smile approvingly, after all, the man was in his 60’s and common knowledge suggests that elderly people will generally be against same-sex marriage.

But Romney soon realized he was wrong about this particular elder and after a brief and uncomfortable discussion, Romney was quickly ushered away from the table.

The veteran was angry, and told reporters that Romney will not get his vote. “He will never be president,” he said. “At least not my president!”

Categories
Domestic Policies marriage equality

The Turning Point In Marriage Equality

Mark this day because it represents a turning point in the fight for equality in the United States. The President of the United States has stated his belief that adults who love each other should share in the same civil rights as other adults who love each other. Suddenly, the president’s new campaign slogan, Forward, has new resonance. Under Obama’s leadership, we have the opportunity to move forward towards a future where the guarantees of the 14th Amendment: “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” are applied to all citizens.

North Carolina might have just slammed the door on marriage equality and civil unions, but I have no doubt that ultimately that kind of discrimination and denial of rights will be overturned, and they should be. No state, even under the guise of federalism, should be able to hide behind a referendum when it comes to rights. This is why the Founders (you remember the Founders: This is a country about Founders) created a republic. They recognized the mischief inherent in allowing democratic votes on suspect propositions.

And where is Mitt Romney on the issue? Backwards. Mitt doesn’t believe that other people should share in civil rights because he, personally, doesn’t think that gays should have marriage equality. Isn’t that quaint? What other civil rights is Mitt going to deny people because he, personally doesn’t believe in them? I notice that he’s leaving caffeine drinkers alone, for now at least. Be thankful.

Of course, the big question is how this is going to affect the presidential race and more specifically, Obama’s reelection chances now that he’s jumped into the public pool with both feet. (By the way, without civil rights protections, Barack Obama would not have been able to swim in that public pool in North Carolina. Just sayin’.) My sense, and my hope, is that this helps him with the younger people who don’t seem quite as threatened by the idea of two loving adults actually being able to get married and share in all its legal bliss.

I could be wrong, but if I am, it will be because too many American don’t realize that it doesn’t matter who you love, just as it doesn’t matter what religion, race, gender, or creed you call yourself. The genius of this country is that all citizens are guaranteed equal protection. All. No exceptions. That’s something I will gladly fight for.

Please join the conversation at  www.facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives and on Twitter @rigrundfest 

Categories
marriage equality Politics

Love Is Natural, Hatred Is Learned

Two alcoholic heterosexuals get married. They produce a child with fetal alcohol syndrome. This marriage has the blessings of both state and church. Two men or two women who want to marry each other, who are upstanding members of their communities and have adopted and raised productive children, are prohibited in most states and allowed civil unions, which are inferior to marriage in fact and in law, in a few.

This is equality under the law?

Marriage equality will be the law of the land sometime in the future but, for most gays and lesbians, justice delayed is justice denied. How can this be? How can a country that promises freedom and civil rights for all of its citizens continue to deny basic rights to a sizable group?

Opponents say that being gay is unnatural and that there’s something inherently wrong with loving someone of the same gender. That’s exactly wrong. Love is one of the most natural processes humans have. You don’t even have to think about it. It just happens from the time we’re born and lasts throughout our life.

Hatred and discrimination, on the other hand, are unnatural. We need to remember that people are not born anti-gay. Discrimination and hatred are learned behaviors and most children learn them from the very adults who claim to be fair, just and responsible. And why are these adults anti-gay? Some are frightened or threatened or jealous or ignorant or all of the above. Some use a rigid cultural definition of what constitutes a family. Some are offended by how other people show their love. Some use a deity as a weapon to threaten and marginalize.

The religious argument strikes me as utter hypocrisy. How can we love the sinner but hate the sin? Isn’t that attitude responsible for sanctioned discrimination and actions against homosexuals? The same goes for the social argument that the right wing peddles. How can the party that lives on freedom and keeping the government out of our lives continue to preach that government should deny marriage equality? Both groups have made the claim that allowing gays to marry would damage heterosexual marriage. In fact, the opposite is true. Marriage has been shown to make families more stable and productive, strengthens commitments to social values, and provides for economic expansion as people make purchases for different stages of life. Gender preference has nothing to do with how we love our family members or how firmly we commit to them.

The more compelling democratic argument is that every adult should be able to marry the person they love, adopt children and be protected by all laws and rights that all other adults have, including economic rights and privileges.  A federal court decision on Wednesday used an employment benefits case to determine that the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional. The decision by U.S. District Court Judge Jeffrey White was unambiguous in its defense of liberty and equality:

“The imposition of subjective moral beliefs of a majority upon a minority cannot provide a justification for the legislation. The obligation of the Court is ‘to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code,'” White wrote. “Tradition alone, however, cannot form an adequate justification for a law….The ‘ancient lineage” of a classification does not render it legitimate….Instead, the government must have an interest separate and apart from the fact of tradition itself.”

 On February 7th, a panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found that:

“Proposition 8 (which denied homosexuals the right to marry) served no purpose, and had no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California.”

These courts have it exactly right. Denying citizens their full rights because of who they love is utter nonsense. The history of the United States shows us to be a country of inclusive rights. To have candidates for the highest office in the land proudly proclaim their preference for discrimination, hatred and disdain is obnoxious, offensive and backwards. Marriage equality is on its way. Let’s make it sooner rather than later.

For more commitments to equality and democracy, visit  www.facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives

and Twitter @rigrundfest

Categories
marriage equality Politics

Get The Hell Off The Beach: The GOP Tsunami Heads Towards Shore

Last week I wrote that the conservative movement would crash this year because of internal disagreements and the inability of one candidate to unify the Republican Party’s fractious components.

Then I waited to see what the next few days would bring. They were uglier than I could have imagined.

Mitt Romney came out against the rescue of GM, even though the auto giant reported record profits and a sustained increase in hiring. Not to be outdone, Rick Santorum expressed the same sentiments, which makes Romney’s stance even more vexing because Mitt’s supposed to be the business savvy candidate with a keen eye for profits and efficiency. That they both agree with each other shows just how out of touch the GOP is. What sense does it make to oppose a policy that saved hundreds of thousands of jobs, revived the tax base of scores of towns, and forestalled what might have been an even worse mortgage and foreclosure crisis in Michigan and Ohio, among other states? Being anti-Obama is one thing. Being pro-ignorant of consequences is quite another.

On the contraception front, both men made sure that they offended a wide swath of the electorate, starting with Santorum backer Foster Friess’s comments about gals using aspirin between their knees as a reliable form of birth control. We also found out that Santorum views contraception as harmful to women. The uproar was so great over this issue that Mitt Romney was forced to veer away from his economic message and attack President Obama as waging a war on religion. As it turns out, the Republicans are waging a war on reason as poll after poll showed that most Americans and most Catholics supported the president’s policy.

I understand the religious objection and think that the Obama administration could have managed the issue more delicately than they did, but in catering to the most base of their base with appeals to hatred, war, and sexism, Romney and Santorum showed that the far right demands absolute fealty to their cause. Discussion and debate is not an option.

Marriage equality was also in the news this week and the GOP was on the wrong end of that debate as well. In New Jersey, Governor Chris Christie vetoed a legislature-backed bill to grant equality under the law to all citizens and called for a referendum on a constitutional right. His veto will be overturned by the deadline in 2014. Bank on it.

In Maryland, the marriage equality bill will be signed by the Governor, but will probably be on the ballot this November. Opposition by African-American churches make passage difficult to gauge. Washington State also saw a bill pass, but opponents have vowed to delay or stop it.

The short-term prospects for these bills might be cloudy, but the sun will shine on marriage equality simply because it’s the right thing to do and the demographics support eventual passage of these laws in a number of states. Younger people support marriage equality (even Republicans) in far greater numbers than their older counterparts, a trend that began last year. Since death of the older generation is inevitable, so is marriage equality.

And there’s more. Santorum also questioned the President’s religious beliefs and Romney has had to protect his right flank against accusations that he’s not conservative enough. With the economy beginning to grow the GOP has to bank on things getting worse. Their new line of attack is high gas prices. Wasn’t that George Bush’s fault in 2008? No? Then how can it be Obama’s in 2012? Anybody hear of supply and demand? Anybody?

It seems as though the Republican candidates we have this year will be the ones remembered for the “Fall of Rome” for their party. They are too extreme, too conservative and on the wrong side of the generational issues. They talk about progress while making sure that we regress into a less tolerant past that they’ve convinced themselves was rosy. It’s one that blamed women who were sexually active and slammed the closet door on gays and lesbians. It was intolerant of those who decided they didn’t want to be religious. We’re not going back to that time.

We’re moving forward!

For more, go to www.facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives and Twitter @rigrundfest

Exit mobile version