"Gay Marriages" in SF

Politics International Politics
41

Absolutely not![/quote]

Mr T. Is your response based on the fact that your dogs are the same gender or on the fact that they are different breeds? Is the issue can be so black and white? (Insert Dalmation gag?) don’t you think you are being a little dogmatic…?[/quote]

None of the above… :laughing:

I simply can’t imagine that Wolf has a dog good enough for my dog. :laughing: Anyway, the decision would be Dofu’s, and him being a Shar Pei, I don’t think he is interested in dogs of a different breed… The only dog he’s gotten on well with as an adult (he loved Sharky’s dog, but he was a month old pup then) is NiNi, a girl Shar Pei. Pity, she lives in Taichung.

42

Well Tigerman:

Did you dog’s ancestor’s come over on the Mayflower? Which obedience school did he go to? How many generations of parents went to the same obedience school? Is legacy involved? Is your dog a member of any special clubs? are the parents? Which fire hydrants do they patronize? Which trees in the park?

Wolf can you also share with us how many bones your dog has buried? and perhaps if there is any history of flea infestation anywhere in either parent’s background? I am assuming such is not the case with your current dog or this discussion would be a dead-end immediately.

We look forward to your assistance in making discreet inquiries to determine to the mutual satisfaction of both parties that the individual dogs in question are providing an accurate representation as to the claims that they are making.

Fido Smith

43

writing as the redneck that i am, just let me add in a quaint,syrupy jim stewart tone:

" but, but,but…this is america by golly. now sam, didn’t the america we use to know talk about “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”? you know “they go to their church, and we go to our church, but we all still go to church together”…right? if we all got along well enough pursuing happiness and allowing for different, different, different, em, uh, ah, different “flavors” at the ice cream counterof life, now, not many folks would wanna come to an ice cream shop that only had one flavor, right?

even if the only flavor was something really good, like chocolate mint or real vanilla still having just one flavor ain’t gonna profit the owner, or the owners community that much. love, like ice cream is one
of those things we all like, right? peter…you like ice cream right? and you love who you love right? well…(hem,haw) you wouldn’t want somebody to tell you what flavor ice cream to put in your cone right? i mean,this is america right? our mothers and father came to this palce SPECIFICLLY to get away from people who wanted them to dress a certain way, pray a certain way or think a certain way. now, everybody gathered inthis public square here today is gosh awfully glad that their mothers and fathers risked the voyage that allows us to be here. they worked and died, so that we can live as we choose. now maybe, you like your ice cream in a cone. i know my cathy like her’s in one of those little pretty parfait glasses. say, bert…i know you like yours on a waffle with whipped cream and sprinkled nuts, right? right. we all like ice cream. naw, tht isn’t really doin’ ice cream justice. we all love ice cream. we all love ice cream our own way. some lick it slow, some make ice cream soup while others slurp it down even after they get one of those awful brain freezes. but EVEN after they suffer the agony of a brain freeze, still they persist and endure. why? because they love ice cream. ice cream is a good thing, right? but “love” is an even better thing, right? if we had to, we can live without ice cream. the older of us remember here just a few years back there wasn’t much of ice cream to be had. we just kinda had to make do and put simple pleasures like peach pecan icecream out of our minds.

put it out of mind. you can do that with ice cream. the first week ain’t easy. there’ll be pangs, yearnings and burnings…but we can live without ice cream. it ain’t so simple with love. no, it ain’t so simple with love. no, not at all.

love is to icecream what a spring day is to the deepest, coldest of winter. once you compare em, there really ain’t much to compare is there? we don’t want anybody telling us how to pray. we don’t want anybody telling us what ice cream we can or cannot eat, and it sure seems to me…that nobody wants anybody else telling them who to love. i mean…look what romeo and juliet and the friar did to facilitate love. you wouldn’t want little chris to resort to something like that just to love do ya? well, do ya?

love is the ultimate, very highest manifestaion of being a person. if you don’t have love, are you really being in the game of life. yeah, well…everybody wants to bat but sooner or later we all sit the bench. ya sit the bench long enough just to get the chance to dig into the box and swing your bat, right? isn’t that we play ball…to swing the bat? eye up the pitcher…notice how high he holds his shoulder… a bit lower, he’s getting tired…the wind up the pitch…you start to,to,to react. you heart twitches, your knee dips, you start to transfer the weight of your hips, but at the the last hundreth of a second you lock your wrist and hold back. the umpire calls “strike”. no worries. you know, it wasn’t YOUR pitch. the coach doesn’t have any calls on. you aren’t to bunt or sacrifice. wouldn’t be much funif all we did was bunt? right. you wait your pitch, hopefully you get it and you drive it. drive it hard. you dop the bat and run with wild abandon and barely contained glee down that line with all your life energy. that maddening dash for first in
a close play. ah just to live it. to get our chance to play. win or lose, we all want a chance to play.

now, everbody here in formosa falls knows everybody else. you all know me. i grew up here. you saw me grow and you came to me and jenny’s wedding. you loved jenny almost as much as i loved her. but she’s been gone now these four years and there isn’t a day passes that i don’t feel grateful for the chance of loving her. take your pick, ice cream,baseball or love. we all love each of em in our own ways. you wanna choke up on the bat and cock one arm like joe morgan? swing away. you wanna haveyour ice cream with crucnched up cookies on it ? crunch away. you wanna love who and how you wanna love? well…by golly, love away. marriage is but a public showing of love. yeah, marriage has benefits (blush). yes, marriage has benefits. and everybody who has ever conntemplated marriage knows it has obligations. big obligations. once you get married you are really inthe game. once you get married your aren’t just a pinch hitter, nah…once you get married you aren’t even just a starter. once you get married you are rogers hornsby by gosh. once you narry, you are off the bench and become player-manager. the responsibility of every success or failure is on your shoulders. yes,it is a burden…but it is a burden of love and anybody who had been there knows there is no sweeter burden than a burden of love.

now alot of you married folks feel that burden. my burden was 'lifted" from me. who ever would of thought that the lifting of a “burden” could ever be so heavy? i what i would give to feel the burden of caring for jenny as she fought for life and our love again.

yeah, love is love. however you wanna celebrate love is fine by this one guy who had it and lost it. get your licks, get your swings. don’t let anybody keep you on the bench. get up and live your life…this is america…the land of the free. do waht you know is right and keep it right so that when our grankids come up they won’t have to run away for freedom like our grandparents did. this is our town, our place, our time. all we got is each other. let’s be happy with what we got but dare to dream for more. yeah, well zuzu’s petals did get crushed. but love is crush-proof. aqueese it all you want. grabit and seize it and don’t let go. don’t let nobody tell you that love is wrong. love free, live free, dream free. that’s why they came here. that’s why we stay here.

love who you wannan love, it is thamerican way.

44

Skeptic Yank:

Put down that gun, or was that Miracle on 34th Street? Anyway, the sentiment remains though it would no doubt drown in that very sweet tribute that you have, um, well, very sweet indeed…

Love who you want to love. No problems there. But there is NO loss of “rights” under civil unions that would be necessarily granted under marriage. And given our voting and courts and referendum, decide it the right way, but for these civil servants to unilaterally (remember how the Left used to hate that word) decide what will pass for legal, lawful and legitimate now is in my humble opinion very unwise. Gays are already able to do pretty much what they want in San Francisco so like so much of the Left and its theatrical gestures (DRAMA! I want DRAMA) this is posturing bravado empty of bravery, preaching to the choir. WHAT happens when similar “folks” in Kentucky or Arkansas, yeah, especially Arkansas… in the Ozarks you know… heheh decide that they will decide which laws to enforce and when and ditto for all the rest of America and I guarantee you that there are more areas where homosexuals will suffer than this little district of SF. So acting illegally now will not give gays more rights, they already those, but it may set the precedent for how their rights are protected in Middle Town America. It may affect how Muslim Americans respect laws governing how they treat their women and children etc.

Anyway, I have said enough and again this particular ISSUE is not of major concern to me, but let’s see where it ends and just remember that FRED SMITH told you so… This may not end out the way that many gays rights advocates think and then where will these shrill voices be? Pretty silent I imagine, but at least, in my book, would be one small benefit.

45

Homer is not technically my dog, although we have been living together for the last six years. Not only is Homer a bitch, but over the age of consent (six dog years).
As to Tigerman’s dog not wanting to marry on standards, this is unusual since this is an arranged marriage for the benefit of our two families.
Of course Homer wants a man-dog so that she can have Homer-puppies. If Tigerman’s pooch is female, that might be a bit of a problem.

46

She’s waaaaay too old for Dofu, who is still only a tender 15 months old. And what kind of name is “Homer” for a bitch. I’d have named her Lor…aine… :laughing:

I fail to see any benefits… :smiley:

Dofu is still a little boy dog. He doesn’t like girls yet. Except for NiNi… he likes NiNi. He doesn’t like LuLu anymore since she bit his nose last weekend… and she’s way too fat for him, anyway. No. But, NiNi, she’s the same breed, color, age and just a bit smaller than Dofu. He reeeeaaally likes NiNi.

47

just realized another interesting twist to this whole saga. boxer’s re-election is no longer the safe bet that it was before. witness her recent statement on the matter. for someone who’s been known as a champion of gay rights, it must be tough on her having to keep quiet about how she really feels. did i mention that californians passed the “marriage is between a man and a woman” proposition in 2000 by a 60-40 margin?

newsom and his fans in sf really screwed the democrats on this one. if it had been decided through the courts or an election, politicans on both sides could have used the “well, that’s the law” excuse. as it is, it’s the REPUBLICANS who can point to laws which passed by huge majorities to defend their positions.

i don’t think they’re going to get the constitution amended, but if this issue sticks around, it’s going to make one happy election year for the republicans. who needs osama when you have san francisco? :slight_smile:

48

[quote=“fred smith”]

So to me, given that there are no serious rights violations in any of these cases, and again I may be wrong on this, but it seems to me more about perceived slights to gays rather than actual denial of rights. So given that no one is really suffering (at least in my perhaps mistaken view) where’s the big beef that would require flouting laws. What this boils down to in my opinion is nothing more than the fact that IN NAME gays want civil unions to be called marriages. Otherwise please point out WHICH RIGHTS (not privileges) are being lost here? Right to adoption? Right to legal protection? etc. etc…[/quote]

Health and retirement benefits; life insurance; income tax, estate tax and wrongful-death benefits, and spousal and dependent support. Currently couples…face financial and legal problems if one partner becomes ill or dies, including the inability to make medical decisions for a partner.
These decisions can benefit, or harm the life of the loved one, which can effect the life of their partner financially.

Also, visiting a partner in the hospital, inheriting property, providing insurance coverage, filing a joint tax return, and distributing assets in a divorce.

49

Alien:

This may be a moot issue since I am changing my mind after IYBF’s sensible and highly convincing comments on the issue of CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE.

But I believe that you may be wrong here since I happen to know that civil unions do result in partnership benefits with health insurance, social security, power of attorney for medical decisions, etc. so I am a bit confused as to why you seem to be under the impression that these are not offered. Does this difference result from different laws in different states or what?

fred

50

[quote=“fred smith”]
But I believe that you may be wrong here since I happen to know that civil unions do result in partnership benefits with health insurance, social security, power of attorney for medical decisions, etc. so I am a bit confused as to why you seem to be under the impression that these are not offered. Does this difference result from different laws in different states or what?[/quote]

Perhaps, that’s the case. But it doesn’t matter.
I’m quoting an email from a very old (college) friend of mine who lives in Oakland, and is a professor at City College of SF. He and his lover (my high school friend) have been together for nearly 20 years now. I introduced them! I emailed him asking if they had also decided to tie the knot, and here is his reply:

[quote]Hey, Lori.

No, we’re not married, though we did go down to City Hall on Valentine’s Day to watch the ceremonies. I don’t think I’ve ever been so moved by a wedding before. It was like one mass wedding – eight ceremonies were going on simultaneously at all times. People had brought their friends and family (and in many cases their children), and almost everyone was crying. Everyone seemed to have a sense that they were participating in history. I’m not sure I can describe how it felt to be there and see a government sticking up for us for change – and actually going to a lot of trouble to do so. They kept City Hall open all day and into the night on Saturday and Sunday in order to get as many people married as possible before a court issued an injunction to stop the weddings. And of course, we all expected that to happen on Tuesday, but it didn’t! I almost can’t believe it.

But as a practical matter, getting married is not a good idea for Brad and me right now. He’s a full-time student again, and he would have a much harder time getting financial aid if he had to list my income on financial aid forms. And there wouldn’t be any tax benefits for us if we got married because the Defense of Marriage Act ensured that the federal government will not recognize these marriages even if California does. We’re already registered domestic partners in California, and that probably gets us as many benefits as an actual marriage would at this stage.[/quote]

Here are some photos he sent me of the ceremonies:
geocities.com/taipei_alien/SFmarriage.html

51

Great informative post, Alien. It illustrates that for all the talk (often speculative) on this subject, it’s only by actually listening to those same-sex couples going through the process that we can see what it’s really like for them.

Your friend’s post suggests things are improving - at least in California - but that there are still many legal miles to travel, not to mention changing of attitudes.

52

Alien:

But your friend’s post precisely proves my point. They are getting the same benefits as under marriage and they have chosen not to get married so his partner can get better financial aid for ongoing education. So you have proved my point and I am bewildered as to how to prove yours? What exactly is our beef again?

  1. Gays are getting the same rights as married couples under civil unions or through legal power of attorney type documents.

  2. I now concede that the officials are acting in legitimate civil disobedience.

So what are we arguing about now? If you had looked at my points with a bit more balance earlier on, we could have arrived at this conclusion many many posts ago.

53

Most recent email from my friend with explanation:

[quote]Here’s what I meant: California’s domestic partner law already guarantees most of those benefits – or will in the near future as soon as a newly passed law goes into effect. The California legislature just passed a bill strengthening its domestic partnership law so that it will provide all ofthe same benefits as the civil unions in Vermont. But we still could not file joint tax returns federally because of DOMA and we still could not collect each other’s social security, etc. I’m already paying more in taxes because I can’t get any credit for the fact that I’m supporting Brad. But if we were to marry, we’d lose even more money because then he wouldn’t be eligible for financial aid. For us, financially, marriage wouldn’t be a good idea right now. In fact, city officials are warning gay couples that they risk losing their domestic partnership rights by getting married – and of course, it is still possible that the state of California will not
recognize these marriages anyway. Several good articles about all of this
can be found at sfgate:
sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c … C654O601.D
TL.[/quote]

Wow, Fred. Up on newly passed laws about domestic partnership in CA?
They still cannot file jointly or collect social security. It’s interesting how many people have still married in SF KNOWING they might lose their domestic partnership rights. It obviously means more to them. Which is what it’s really all about, isn’t it?

54

Alien:

So the benefits are essentially the same and the law is already being enacted PRIOR to these latest protests in San Francisco? So what exactly are we fighting about? As usual I have looked into the facts before posting on this thread and as usual you have let your emotions get away from you. I think that you owe me an apology.

55

Fred:

It’s really cute how you always put a little colon after the names of those you address. See, I did it too! :wink:

I’m afraid you didn’ t catch this part, however:

DOMA being ‘Defense of Marriage Act’. Great framing there! It’s as if someone were trying to attack marriage itself! Clinton’s responsible here, so we’ll NOT make this a partisan issue, k? :wink:
lectlaw.com/files/leg23.htm

Perhaps, due to our personal misunderstanding surrounding this subject, we have shed new light upon what may not have been an elucidated issue: The fact that those who have the freedom to marry, would also have the freedom to choose whether such an arrangement would suit them or not. This should go for anyone.

The state of marriage isn’t always as cut and dried as saying you love someone and want to be with them forever. People choose to marry often because of the benefits it affords them. I would reckon quite a few people who’re married to Taiwanese have done so because it enabled them to remain here indefinately, open businesses with ease, allow their partners to immigrate, etc. I can honestly say that at the time I married, that was quite a useful bonus. And that was before Hartzell fought for the boys to be granted the same priviledges as us girls. It was dead easy for me to get my ARC as a female spouse back in 1994. I even stayed married an extra two years after we separated, so I could hold onto it a while longer.

So, there are many benefits that people are afforded when they’re married.

My friends have decided against marrying because it doesn’t suit them at the present time since they would probably lose their status as domestic partners, and then where would they be if DOMA stands? It’s like being between a rock and a hard place, I suppose.

Some of the folks in the photos he took may have had similar issues to consider (Did you see the one with the twin babies? Isn’t that adorable?), but they wanted to ‘make history’ or ‘make their unions legal’ in the eyes of God and the world, and they sacrificed this eventuality anyway.

So, rather than arguing, yes, I agree, since we’re on the same side, we should work together “bi-partisanly” to help forge a “Defense of the Defense of Marriage Act” in the name of fairness, freedom, fulfillment, trust, and in order to build up our communities and educate the 60% that tigerman reckons would vote against same-sex marriage. But most of all, because America is a strong and prosperous nation that can lead the world in such an important progressive committment.

56

[quote] Putting Bias in the Constitution

With his re-election campaign barely started and his conservative base already demanding tribute, President Bush proposes to radically rewrite the Constitution. The amendment he announced support for yesterday could not only keep gay couples from marrying, as he maintains, but could also threaten the basic legal protections gay Americans have won in recent years. It would inject meanspiritedness and exclusion into the document embodying our highest principles and aspirations.

If Mr. Bush had been acting as a president yesterday, rather than a presidential candidate, he would have tried to guide the nation on the divisive question of what rights gay Americans have. Across the nation, elected officials and others have been weighing in on whether they believe gays should be allowed to marry, have civil unions, adopt, visit their partners in hospitals and be free from employment discrimination. Except for a throwaway line about proceeding with “kindness and good will and decency,” the president’s speech was a call for taking rights away from gay Americans.

President Bush’s studied unwillingness to talk about the rights gay people do have is particularly significant given the wording of the Federal Marriage Amendment now pending in Congress. It calls for denying same-sex couples not only marriage, but also its “legal incidents.” It could well be used to deny gay couples even economic benefits, which are now widely recognized by cities, states and corporations. Such an amendment could radically roll back the rights of millions of Americans.
In his remarks yesterday, President Bush tried to create a sense of crisis. He talked of the highest Massachusetts court’s recognition of gay marriage, San Francisco officials’ decision to grant marriage licenses to gay couples and a New Mexico county’s doing the same thing. He did not say the New Mexico attorney general found that gay marriages violate state law, the California attorney general is asking the California Supreme Court to review San Francisco’s actions, and Massachusetts is considering amending its State Constitution to prohibit gay marriage. The president, who believes so strongly in states’ rights in other contexts, should let the states do their jobs and work out their marriage laws before resorting to a constitutional amendment.

[color=red]The Constitution has been amended over the years to bring women, blacks and young people into fuller citizenship. President Bush’s amendment would be the first adopted to stigmatize and exclude a group of Americans. Polls show that while a majority of Americans oppose gay marriage, many would prefer to allow the states to resolve the issue rather than adopting a constitutional amendment. They understand what President Bush does not: the Constitution is too important to be folded, spindled or mutilated for political gain.[/color]
[/quote]
nytimes.com/

57

Refer back to my earlier comments about hurting the very ones that you are trying to help and now understand my concern about these civil servants taking the law into their own hands. I TOLD YOU SO.

This again is not going to be an issue just for states, but one that yes would apparently have been best left to the states to decide except for one thing, California and Massachusetts had already voted to deny marriage rights to gay couples. This still left civil unions. Now, perhaps these (unfairly so) will be under attack too.

So your concern for all this only is activated when George Bush is involved? How committed are you to your principles? Earth to Alien: California and Massachusetts have done the same thing within the past year or so. Where was the outrage then? :unamused: Now, Bush is involved and suddenly you are activating about an issue that ostensibly you are supposedly so concerned about? :unamused: Give me a break.

Marriage is not a constitutional right. Discrimination based on sex, and by extension I guess sexual orientation (though I do not know how this will pay out) however, is something that would run afoul of the constitution. Therefore something must be decided and I suppose that it is best served by having the supreme court do so. But once again, you have opened a kettle of fish without taking the long-term view of how these issues are best addressed but have yelled and screamed and howled about discrimination and now, what do you have to say for yourself? :unamused: It was all right for some to break the law to further their causes and you were hootin and a hollerin when that was all goin down but now that the shoe is on the other foot… NOW do you see my concerns? And this will not just be relegated to the issue of same sex marriage in my opinion but may have other reprecussions that is just beginning to dawn on your liberal kneejerk mind.

However, worry thee not. I really cannot see how the constitution could possibly be amended to ban same-sex marriages. Where would the constitutional legality of that be? Again, however, I do not see how the Constitution can be amended to support same sex marriages and so therefore you may be better off (as your more informed advocates have chosen to do) and that is to push for civil unions which entail all the benefits of marriage.

58

Gloating about something like this? You’ve gone too far.
He’s YOUR candidate. What have YOU got to say for yourself?

Hurting the ones you’re trying to help? Oh, you mean like in the Middle East? I thought it was okaaaay there. I truly cannot grasp your point, Fred.

Oh yes, I am aware that the conservative value system views the world as fundamentally dangerous and difficult and that people are fundamentally not good. They have to be made good and taught right from wrong, assuming there is an absolute right and wrong. Setting strict rules for behavior and enforcing them through punishment so children must learn self-discipline and self-reliance and respect for authority is a cornerstone of the Bush administration. Unfortunately, this is dysfunctional and has caused the opposite results.

[quote]
Strict Father morality does not have empathy as its highest principle. Instead, Moral Strength is its highest principle and Moral Empathy is relatively far down on the list. But the metaphor that Morality is Strength allows experiential morality to be overridden regularly. Strict Father morality allows one to impose experiential harm on others in the name of the abstract metaphorical principle that Morality is Strength. In short, Strict Father morality allows you to hurt people in the name of morality. That violates experiential morality, which is the foundation of every abstract moral system.[/quote]

wwcd.org/issues/Lakoff.html#CONSEQUENCES

Fred, your people are hurting my people in the name of morality. Don’t try to weasel out of taking the blame for this.

59

Alien:

Where we differ so greatly is communication styles. You are truly from Venus and I am truly from Mars. You want everything to revolve around feelings and I would prefer to stick to facts. Cannot say that one or the other is right or not but our system is based on laws and that presupposes factual argumentation and understanding of the factual processes involved. So bully for me until womyn rewrite the constitution so that all humans, gender transcribed, confused searching sexual or animal identity crystal ball searching religions and pets both animal and bird are granted to right to handicapped parking, you may have to suck it in and try to argue logically.

Few gays will vote for Bush anyway. He is using this to garner strong support from his own base. Don’t tell me that the Democrats have not used such cheap electioneering tricks in the past. Do I think that Bush is doing the right thing here? Of course not. Will Bush actually get an amendment passed banning such marriages between gays at the Constitutional level? I seriously doubt it. Will he even seriously try? Again, I doubt it. If you understood the constitution a bit better you would be less worried as well, but then maybe I would be taking an opportunity from you to FEEL so FEEL away. Revel in the glorious sanctimonious righteousness of your OUTRAGE. Drama! Lights! Martyrdom!

Finally, as you repeatedly fail to face. Gays are not losing nor have they lost any RIGHTS. They do not have all of the same PRIVILEGES that other groups have and if you look at that from a macro level, yes, I believe that you have a good case for discrimination. BUT put this into perspective. This is NOT the same as denying people the right to vote, or any of the other injustices that occurred in the South during Civil Rights reform. Hyperbole of this sort does nothing to win support among the thinking classes. Joint filing of taxes is NOT a right, it is a privilege. Hell, long-term unmarried couples face the same discrimination.

Finally, if you care to reread my posts in the Middle East forum, you will understand greatly how this hurting your cause differs greatly from my support for strong actions in the Middle East. Briefly, I will explain.

You claim to want gays to get the same rights and privileges that hetrosexuals get. Are you getting further toward achieving your goals? I do not see that you are.

I claim to want to see the Middle East reformed. Am I furthering my goals? I think that I am.

The fact that innocent people in the Middle East are getting killed is terrible, BUT the fight that is going on now is one toward progress to ensure that fewer deaths and random killings occur in the future. AND most importantly, cleaning up the Middle East will ensure our own security. So yes, some people are getting hurt but the overall bar is moving in our favor in the Middle East while the selective and partisan interpretation of laws in San Fran has backfired and rightly so.

There are better ways to achieve those aims. What would have happened if the Ten Commandments were not removed from the Supreme Court in Alabama and the judge in question started administering “Christian” law? I believe it would have caused the same backlash against Christianity that you are now seeing against gay marriage and in both cases such a backlash is fair and understandable. You are not willing to wait to do this the right way and other groups are naturally quite sensitive to see those you support pulling a coup d’etat of sorts with regard to legal enforcement. You have only yourself to blame. I TOLD YOU SO. If you are not going to think through all the ramifications before you start “activating,” then pay the consequences. AND you will.

60

[quote=“fred smith”]
If you are not going to think through all the ramifications before you start “activating,” then pay the consequences. AND you will.[/quote]
Because, BIG DADDY BUSH will punish you severly if you don’t obey.
:unamused: