« President Bush and the Katrina Response | Main | Loony Liberals Blame Roberts for Katrina »

Gays to voters: "We know where you live"

I've said, repeatedly, that I'm in favor of gay marriage. But I support it ONLY if it's enacted properly, by legislative act or popular vote, such as through a referendum. To bring it about by fiat, such as was done in Massachusetts, will ultimately be self-defeating.

That out of the way, I have to comment on the latest goings-on in Massachusetts. As many of you know, the whole gay marriage thing started down there when a few gay couples sued the state for the right to be wed. As the case wended its way through the system, the legislature repeatedly dodged, evaded, and avoided the whole issue, with the leadership actively squelching repeated petitions and calls for a state Constitutional amendment to address the issue. Apparently, their belief was that "if we ignore it, it'll go away."

Naturally, after repeated warnings, the Supreme Judicial Court came down with its ruling: gays could not be denied the "right" to be wed.

The general populace of Massachusetts, which isn't quite as liberal as their chosen representatives would suggest, predictably went ape. The pro-gay-marriage side might have been better organized, better funded, and louder, but they certainly weren't more numerous. And now they'd given their opponents a combination wake-up call and rallying cry.

So now the unwashed masses are finally stirring. They're putting together yet another petition to get the question of gay marriage before a Constitutional convention. They're pretty familiar with the process -- they did it several times before, and each time the leaders of the Legislature took the petitions, crumpled them up, and tossed them into the trash unread.

This time is different. The eyes of the nation are upon them, and the so-called leaders are finally realizing that the people are PISSED. Royally, righteously, ripshit furious. Maybe even enough to stop voting for them and deptive them of their secure, comfy jobs and positions of power.

So the bigwigs are making noises about actually listening to the people who put them in office and pay their salaries.

This has the pro-gay-marriage very, very nervous. In every single case when gay marriage has gone to the people for a vote, it's lost. They have the Boston Globe firmly in their corner (after all, Chief Justice Margaret Marshall is married (in a presumably non-gay way) to New York Times columnist Anthony Lewis, and the Times owns the Boston Globe), they have a few key judges and legislators, but they don't have the proletariat behind them on this one. They are desperate.

And as the old saying goes, desperate times call for desperate measures.

Two gay activists, happily married now, say that they simply cannot believe that anyone would sign the petitions going around. And as a sign of their incredulity, they're going to post the names and addresses of all the signers they can identify on a web site.

Let's be honest. There's only one reason, and one reason only, someone puts together a list of people's names and addresses and publishes them. They're not trying to help them win the Publisher's Clearing House Sweepstakes. They're not trying to conduct a demographic study. They're out to intimidate them. They want people to be nervous about affixing their names and addresses to a petition, knowing that someone who disagrees with them and might be prone to violence could just click on a web site and find out where they live.

As I said at the top, I support gay marriage. But if I lived in Massachusetts (and thank god I don't), I'd sign one of these petitions just to get the issue before the people, where it belongs.

And after reading about this move, I'd sign it in John Hancock-sized letters, purely as a big "F U" to these assholes.

By the way, Tom Lang and Alex Westerhoff -- the couple behind this move -- apparently live in Manchester-by-the-Sea, Massachusetts, and own an antique shop in Essex, Massachusetts. Ten minutes of Googling got me the business' full name, address, and phone number, but I am unsure if I should publish it.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Gays to voters: "We know where you live":

» Rocket Jones linked with Gay Marraige, Coast to Coast

Comments (32)

They can put my name on the... (Below threshold)
ICallMasICM:

They can put my name on the list now.

' ``I have the fight in me now, and if people I know, or that I support, or that I do business with are on that list, I might not support them or their philanthropies or their businesses,'' said Tom Lang, who launched knowthyneighbor.org with his spouse, Alex Westerhoff. '

Wow - them's fighting words!

Unsure? Turnabout is fair p... (Below threshold)
LCVRWC:

Unsure? Turnabout is fair play, Jay. Let them have a taste of their own medicine.

(Give me a few minutes, and I'll come up with some more platitudes.)

As a Massachusetts resident... (Below threshold)
Mike:

As a Massachusetts resident and conservative, I look forward to signing the petition. I will look with pride for my name on their website.

And I can't wait to vote for defining marriage as the union between one man and one woman!

I'm from massachusetts and ... (Below threshold)
oldowan:

I'm from massachusetts and this is pure BS.
I need to know how to get my name on this petition. Anybody have any idea?

Just called Westerhouse's s... (Below threshold)

Just called Westerhouse's shop and left a message. (They don't open until 11 am) I basically said this stunt is about intimidation and that he's nothing but a PUNK. I also said that if his kind keeps up this type of behavior they'll get nowhere.

I shared my testimony (as a... (Below threshold)

I shared my testimony (as an ex-gay ) before the Massachusetts State Judiciary Committee in May of 2003 so I am on record as opposing the gay definition of marriage there and around the country.

I completely agree with you, let the people decide. If the redefinition comes...it comes...but it will come from the people...not a judge's decision.

While sharing my story I was mocked and laughed at. Most gay identified folks are civil, respectful and a few have either remained or become good friends of mine. Mature people, especially friends, can transcend mutual respect above strong disagreement.

On the other hand, I get threats, mocking and bullying tactics from other gay activists on a consistent basis. The hate in the eyes of the men that beat the crud out of me is the same hate in the eyes of the lesbian who cornered and accused me of horrendous things outside that committee meeting.

It's one thing to be opposed, quite another to seek and silence. I am almost afraid to post this here in fear that it would be deleted or I will get flamed.

We will see what happens.

Well this is a page right o... (Below threshold)

Well this is a page right out of the anti-abortion playbook (well the fringe groups anyway); I guess the next step will be for gays to start bombing stuff (that is if they follow the path of the anti-abortion fringe).

But let's make no mistake; these tactics are from the fringe and not from any mainstream gay groups trying to make social change thought appropriate channels.

Randy, you have nothing to ... (Below threshold)
Sue Dohnim:

Randy, you have nothing to fear here from any of us reasonable people. Your existence as a self-described ex-gay threatens the fabric of deception and half-truths that the activists have been weaving over the past three decades. You are brave to challenge it. Thank you, Randy.

Jay Tea, I'd say whatever level of info that this couple distributes is the same level you're allowed to distribute. If they distribute home addresses, then they should have no problems with their own home address being published. And so on.

Imagine if a group posted t... (Below threshold)
yetanotherjohn:

Imagine if a group posted the names and addresses of gay couples who filed for a marriage license.

Hey Randy!I don't ... (Below threshold)
D. Doré:

Hey Randy!

I don't envy your situation, but pray for your safety and courage. Keep telling the truth, eventhough I know it costs you sometimes!

Jay, take a look at what Ca... (Below threshold)

Jay, take a look at what California is doing. The California legislature voted to allow gay marriages in what seems is against the will of the people. There was a recent proposition (72, I believe), that had the people vote with a 65-35 margin AGAINST gay marriages.

I love how all of you are s... (Below threshold)
JuliW:

I love how all of you are so ready to jump up there and put your name in this list to show how "intimidation" isn't going to get the best of you. Think for one second like a rational person. People are generally lazy, so keep that in mind…Do you REALLY think that anyone in their right mind would go through even half the trouble that these gay couples are if it didn't mean that much to them and if they weren't sick to death of the DECADES of intimidation THEY have suffered to "keep quiet." What skin is it off your back to have two people who love each other get married? If it affects your relationships with god, you had really better take a look at that instead.

Anyone who has such a weak relationship with their higher power to begin with and is so afraid of answering why THAT is, that they have to project it out to the rest of the world in "you can't do this and you can't do that because GOD says so," is a weak-minded, half-hearted individual. Your relationship with god should be yours and yours alone. Don’t worry whatever we have “coming to us” will happen when it’s supposed to. No one assigned you to the role of messenger. Until heterosexual couples can actually prove that they've got the secret to marriage all locked up (68% divorce rate) then seriously, shut-up and let anyone who wants to get married do so. Love is love and if you think you've got the real thing, then have at it.

Singing off, a VERY heterosexual woman,
Juli

I still want to know why we... (Below threshold)
Fran:

I still want to know why we can't kill them, like
the Bible says.

I thought we had freedom of religion in this country.

What's wrong with this country?

'Think for one second like ... (Below threshold)
ICallMasICM:

'Think for one second like a rational person. '

That would be 1 second more than you did.

'Do you REALLY think that anyone in their right mind would go through even half the trouble that these gay couples are if it didn't mean that much to them'

It means a lot to them so that makes it right?

'then seriously, shut-up and let anyone who wants to get married do so. '

So we should have no laws defining marriage or just the ones you want?

See we live in a representative democracy. When our representatives fail to represent we have the option of initiative petitions. This actually is a right unlike the right to marry.

Henry, in CA that referendu... (Below threshold)
Jay Tea:

Henry, in CA that referendum prevented the state from recognizing other state's gay marriages -- NOT from recognizing their own. It's a loophole, and the person who let it slip through oughtta be horsewhipped, but it's still legit.

That being said, you'll notice the Governator says he'll veto it -- and if the CA legislature overrides it, they'll have to face the voters who passed that referendum come next election.

Alongside, most likely, a new referendum closing that loophole.

That's how the system is supposed to work, Henry.

J.

Fran, instead of posting pi... (Below threshold)

Fran, instead of posting piss-poor attempts at satire, try reading the Gospels sometime. It'll answer your question.

Ah, thanks for the clarific... (Below threshold)

Ah, thanks for the clarification, Jay.

Thanks to those of you who ... (Below threshold)

Thanks to those of you who were personally encouraging. I appreciate that.

Fran...go away...and consider that while "troll" doesn't appear in the Old Testament, your actions "bear false witness" (in the top ten list) against what is appropriate today in an age of Grace.

Juli, I do know the issues that the gay community went/goes through. I lived it...wholeheartedly until I was 24. I can tell you both sides of the argument backwards and forwards because I have lived in both camps. I loved my lovers and have left that behind for what I consider a greater Love.

Hardly weak minded, it was a helluva journey to re-evaluate everything I believed in and critically review what was always assumed...on both sides.

And believe me, I am as criticized by some on the "right" as I am on the "left."

I am not against self-determination. You can choose to love, invest in, emotionally relate to, enter into private contracts with whomever you want. I will do my very best to respect that right of self-determination. When crafting "public" policy the word "public" is key. It's not just about my gay neighbor, it's a fundamental principle about what is best for society now and in the future. All of society, not one segment.

I won't check my civil liberties at the door because of emotional tirades that tell me to "shut up."

You have a good point about heterosexual divorce but using a "wrong" to justify what you think is right is counter-productive. The answer to that is simply, yeah but the ideal is still children being raised by the gift of Mom's innate abilities and Dad's innate abilities. Where they are different they will help round out the child, where they unite is unparalleled in the gay community.

To redefine marriage would be a public policy move to undermine this already weakened ideal.

That's my personal observation as having been gay and my personal opinion.

Also, notice, you are the one who brought up God, and cast aspersions on the condition of people's "hearts." I know the people who want to redefine marriage and for the most part they have great intentions. I don't hate them or want to hurt them. At the same time, I want a great society to continue to promote the ideal of what I think makes a solid foundation for society...the nuclear family as it has always been celebrated in public policy across the globe throughout time.

I know what it is like to be beat up for being gay. I know what it is like to have a truck load of rednecks scare the hell out of me and my friends outside a gay bar as they shot shotguns over our heads.

I also know that redefining marriage should not happen and if it were to happen it wouldn't stop the pain and persecution fringe elements on both sides are inflicting on each other.

In either case, back to the point of the post, I am glad to live in a country that will let Juli and I share our views. If the issue is put before the legislatures, we have a chance to make our views known through our elected officials. Judges should not usurp the voice of the people.

HEY, anyone who wants to pu... (Below threshold)

HEY, anyone who wants to publish MY NAME for signing a petition to support putting something ON THE BALLOT (like the commenter above said) should have NO PROBLEM WHAT SO EVER with their address being published in the same manner ALL OVER THE INTERNET. Also, isn't it just amazing that the "progressive left" seems to have made NO PROGRESS as far as society goes? They still rely on fear and intimidation to get their will done, and that's been around for THOUSANDS OF YEARS!

Jay, I'll give you huge amo... (Below threshold)
John:

Jay, I'll give you huge amount of credit and say you're being disengenuous.

You say twice in the post that you're for gay marriage. Good first step. You may want to talk about why. I am for gay marriage because I believe it's a civil rights issue.

But for you to go on to say you are only for it if it's "enacted properly" does not wash. Do you mean that currently you are not for it? And as soon as the voters say so, you will be for it? And to further stretch credulity, your disdain for publicly posting a petition outweighs your support for gay marriage enough to sign a petition AGAINST gay marriage?

I would think you are more independent than that and you do have an actual opinion, public support be damned.

Nice going, John -- questio... (Below threshold)

Nice going, John -- questioning Jay's independence because he doesn't agree with you.

Did you forget to take your irony supplement this morning?

John,I imagine tha... (Below threshold)

John,

I imagine that while Jay supports same-sex marriage, he doesn't think that the ends justify the means. With radical changes like this, democracy aught to play a role (that and no one has died because the government didn't recognize their marriage).
As well, by forcing the issue against the voter's will, it has a backlash effect against the gay-rights movement. This may actually weaken gay-rights organizations in effecting public policy.

Now, I am against same-sex marriage, but I can't disrespect Jay for his position because he shows actual tolerance towards people like me who disagree with him. It's easier to extend the favor to him because of this than towards those who would disparage me because of this stance.

OK...If McGehee & ... (Below threshold)
John:

OK...

If McGehee & Half Canadian are right, then at the very least Jay should have worded his statement of support differently. I happen to agree with him on gay marriage, if that's what he truly believes.

What I question is the veracity of the support if he's willing to not support gay marriage unless there is popular support. Correct me if I'm wrong in reading Jay's position.

I'm also not questioning the validity or merits of publicly posting names on a petition. But my potential disagreement would not force me to sign a petition calling for a constitutional ban on gay marriage while at the same time supporting gay marriage.

Jay is right that forcing the issue can be counter-productive. But, hey, take a stand and be uneqivocal about it. He should say "I support gay marriage. Period. And I also wish the voting public would agree with me."

But where I disagree with most commenters here is that civil rights issues should never be subjected to popular vote.

Ten minutes of Googling ... (Below threshold)
Sean:

Ten minutes of Googling got me the business' full name, address, and phone number, but I am unsure if I should publish it.

Jay, this is public information, therefore I have no such hesitation.

Paraded Percentages Prov... (Below threshold)
D. Doré:

Paraded Percentages Proved Propaganda

Juli W (You strong heterosexual female you!)

Oh, and Randy... I hope you read this too so you won't feel that she had even half of a real point in her monologue:

"Until heterosexual couples can actually prove that they've got the secret to marriage all locked up (68% divorce rate) then seriously, shut-up and let anyone who wants to get married do so."

That rate is such an amazing misquote and use of poor math it makes me crazy! The divorce rate ANYONE should be looking at is the divorce rate of FIRST MARRIAGES! Afterall, if a person has divorced previously, it's not difficult for them to think that divorce is the way to settle problems with their new spouse too. Yes, it's true... most divorces occur with people who have previously been divorced. However, in the case of FIRST MARRIAGES the DIVORCE RATE is actually about 20%, YES 20%!! If you need to see the math to see for yourself how the 50% myth and the manufactured 68% lies have been created, here are my resources:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/19/health/19divo.html

http://www.divorceinfo.com/blog/?p=187

http://missourifamilies.org/features/divorcearticles/divorcefeature17.htm

Just because some people keep getting divorced 2, 3 or 4 times because they can't figure out the problems in their new marriage seem to keep popping up because THEY are the problem, it shouldn't taint the truth about the actual strength of heterosexual marriage and its close to 80% success rate.

Also, have you noticed that while churches may have outspoken beliefs about the practice of homosexuality, there isn't a huge outcry saying that you CAN'T do it (perhaps that they believe you shouldn't do it). Yet when it comes to marriage one of the most overlooked facts is this: If homosexual marriage is made legal, because of the relationship between ministers, rabbis & priests with the state for their authority to marry a couple (as part of their ministerial license) it could be necessary for the State to mandate that clergy must perform such unions even if it against their faith to do so (as long as they want the ability to continue to perform weddings) to ensure against discrimination.

Everyone screams at the top of their lungs "Separation of Church & State!" except for when it comes to its original intent, keeping the state OUT of my (yours and anyone elses) churches!

And don't even try to say that "Well who would want to get married someplace where they aren't really wanted and make a minister do something against his faith." The answer is the same portion of the 1% of Americans who are homosexual and continue to try and force the rest of the population to believe that they are actually 10% strong. When traced back, this mysterious 10% myth seems to come from only one study, and that was completed in 1948 from the Kinsey Report (who's research was conducted with 25% of his sample group being prison inmates, and self admittedly "several hundred" of his 5300 sample comprised of male prostitutes. Not quite the normal cross section of American Culture (at least not where anyone I know of lives outside of Hollywood).

Perhaps the truest study comes from the Senior Staff Scientist at the Radcliffe Infirmary (Oxford, England), David Forman who compiled a study from 1984 to 1987 who found that only 1.7% of a sample study had ever had homosexual intercourse. Also, in 1989 the University of Chicago conducted a study that revealed that "less than 1% [are] exclusively homosexual".

Think about that. In your own walk of life if you are heterosexual, are 10% of the people you know homosexual? (don't include the amount of homosexual characters portrayed on every TV show in some bizarre affirmative action). It's probably more like 1%, isn't it?

D. Dore:I apprecia... (Below threshold)
John:

D. Dore:

I appreciate your comments setting us straight on heterosexual divorce rates and the actual % of gays & lesbians in our population. And you have clearly supported my opinion that civil rights issues should never be subject to popular vote.

You see, since they don't comprise 10% of the poulation, but really 1%, that's prima facie evidence that gay marriage should not be allowed. There's just not enough of them! When they get to 35% to 40% of the population, then we'll talk, right?

Or at least then Jay will unequivocally support marriage.

John, might I give you a qu... (Below threshold)
Jay Tea:

John, might I give you a quick guided tour through the Wizbang archives?

1

2

3

So, John, I've been publicly saying the same thing for nearly a year now. I've believed it even longer. And I've taken a bit of heat over it, but not changed my position.

I think that it's important that it be done, but more important that it be done RIGHT. Otherwise, the backlash will be tremendous.

J.

Even with all that nice leg... (Below threshold)

Even with all that nice legal lingo of pro faciae (sp?) evidence (whether that is an accurate use of the term or not is in question), it's not a civil rights issue.

The criteria for adding protected classes to the sixties legislation according "civil rights" is

1. Immutability - Homosexuality is not immutable. Examples are myself, Anne Heche and the things that happen in prison. Oh and the occasional party that gets a little beyond what someone would expect.

Don't ask me how I know about that last part on parties ... I have a sordid past.

Homosexuality is not immutable.

2. Economic disenfranchisement - that 1% spends 450 Billion dollars a year according to Planet Out Marketing. The average gay household makes over 50k a year, the average white household makes 30k a year and the average African American household makes close to 20k. The gay community is not economically disenfranchised.

3. Widespread pattern of discrimination - You do not see police dogs turning on gay children, gay couples being lynched every weekend, being told they can't go to college or denied jobs. You don't see sit ins at diner's that refuse service. Gay people are not spooned into the bottom of boats and didn't have to fight the glass ceiling that oppressed women. The gay community can vote and many hold high office and influential positions in every sector of society.

I'll never forget watching the news a couple of years ago and a lesbian couple talking about how they were oppressed second class citizens as they wore expensive clothes and jewelry, had nice jobs and ended the piece floating off in their private boat.

The gay community may suffer a certain amount of persecution but it grows less by the day and never reached the point that other groups experienced. Not even close.

Does the gay community have an issue worth discussing? Absolutely. Is it a civil rights issue? Absolutely not and it's an insult to say that what the gay community is fighting for is the same thing.

09-09-05Subject: ... (Below threshold)
Tony Valeri:

09-09-05

Subject: Arnold the TERMINATOR is BACK

Arnold has adopted a new weapon. . .it is called a VETO. It will be used to support a few billion people whose ancient cultures and religious laws are being overriden by a minute class of hedonistic, western world special interest groups, in particular, The Homosexual Lobby.

The great religions of the world, such as Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism all teach and abide by the sacredness of the One Man/One Woman marriage ceremony.

It is to Governor Schwarzenegger s understanding of this sacredness and the will of the people, especially the people of Calofornia, that the Governor has started to reverse the momentous tide of sin and secularism overcoming America.

The Governor s next step must be to propose and support an amendment to the California Constitution that will permanently STOP any further attempts to turn California cities into modern Sodom and Gomorrah s.

WELCOME BACK ARNOLD

Tony Valeri, Eugene, OR Tel: 541 607-6305 ([email protected])

68% divorce rate... (Below threshold)
h0mi:
68% divorce rate

Myth. A distortion of the record.

Henry, in CA that referendum prevented the state from recognizing other state's gay marriages -- NOT from recognizing their own. It's a loophole, and the person who let it slip through oughtta be horsewhipped, but it's still legit.

This is what the proponent of the bill that Ca just passed is claiming. The proposition text does not specify anything about where the Marriage was held; it says

Adds a provision to the Family Code providing that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

The idea that this only applies to out of state marriage is absurd- so presumably if I marry a man in Ma but move to or already live in California, I'd have to re-marry in Ca for it to be recognized?

It seems that this is inten... (Below threshold)
A Nony Mouse:

It seems that this is intended as an act of intimidation. I wonder if it's a civil rights violation under federal law?

I assume the petition records are public information so it may be perfectly legal for them to post the information, but not if it is indended to deprive people of their right to petition the government for redress...

Just a thought.

I'll start by stating that ... (Below threshold)
A Nony Mouse:

I'll start by stating that I'm married 23+years (one marriage, not several), hetero, and have been completely faithful in my marriage. And I have absolutely no problems with gay marriage. But then, I'm not religious in any way. My decision to marry, and my taking of vows, was entirely personal and had nothing to do with any religious beliefs. (I'll be attacked on this point, I'm sure.)

I do take issue with the state's involvement in marriage.

Ignoring for a moment the issue of religion and churches, the history of the state's involvement in marriage (marriage licensing) was racially motivated - preventing marriages between people of different ethnic backgrounds.

http://slate.msn.com/id/30352/
http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/html/eugenics/essay7text.html
http://www.corante.com/importance/archives/002111.html


The fact that it's no longer used that way (most of the time), and that we all accept licensing as 'normal' in no way changes the nature of the beast. I've noticed that both sides of this issue seem to ignore the essence of the issue: If you accept that the state has the power to require two people to get the state's permission to marry, then you must accept that the state has the power to decide who may apply and who may not. Otherwise, what is the purpose of the state requiring a license to marry? Hmm? Any answers?

Personally, I'd prefer to see the state butt out (no pun intended) of marriage, which should be a purely religious issue.

I see the state's involvement in marriage (licensing, tax breaks, etc.) as an evil in itself, because the state has no legitimate power to control such things. So, the power that it excercises today is prone to abuse, as it was from the beginning.

Both sides of this issue are fighting a losing battle, because you have mis-identified the target - If the state is unable to define marriage at all, if it confers absolutely no benefits to those who are married according to some church document, then who cares if some fringe church declares that Sam and Bob or Jane and Julie are married?

No matter the outcome of the current fracas, the state ends up the winner, because it retains a bogus power that it really should not have, that of licensing marriage and using that power to enforce 'public policy', which means: the state gets to decided who may marry, for the perceived benefit of society.

Meanwhile, people will continue to squabble over what defines public policy, and some will claim 'oppressed' status.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy