Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
sad people

Why Does Maggie Gallagher Still Not Understand What Makes Her a Hate Leader?


Anti-gay piñata Maggie Gallagher has had it with you pro-marriage equality jerks. You come to the table thinking everyone sees it your way, and unlike the lovely and pleasant Brian Brown, you refuse to engage in reasonable debate about the sanctity of marriage. You’re the haters!

The National Organization for Marriage president pens a rebuttal for anyone who’s got a problem with her message — a diatribe we support, because we love the First Amendment. We’d marry it if NOM helped make it legal.

But Gallagher enters this debate from a point in human history that will paint her as a bigot. As someone who erred. As a human being who spent her career and her life arguing that discrimination should be acceptable.

And that’s too bad for her.

“Either you are for gay marriage,” she writes, “or you are a bad person who should be repressed, humiliated, hurt, marginalized and excluded.”

Well, not all of those things (we don’t want you hurt, at least not physically), but otherwise, yes Maggie, you’re right: If you stand against affording Americans certain freedoms, rights, and privileges because of who they love, you should be marginalized. Because you preach hatred and exclusion, and that is not something this country was founded on. That is not something we, as Americans, should tolerate, let alone promote.

“Here’s the truth: You will now be called a hater and a bigot merely for standing for marriage as one woman and one man,” Gallagher continues. “What do we make of this sad truth? So far, the bullies pay no price for their meanness and their rage. […] I know that not every gay person agrees with the tactics of hate currently employed by this powerful steamroller of a political movement to suppress dissent, just as I know some gay people don’t support gay marriage. (Not many, but I’ve met ’em!) And I do know this: Bullies don’t stop as long as bullying works. Gay marriage advocates have to rein in their movement, or people in Maine and elsewhere are going to draw the natural conclusion: When the law endorses gay marriage advocates like Fred Karger and their ideas, it will have consequences.”

For far too many decades, Gallagher and her kin have been the bullies, while the LGBT community has stood by, taking a beating — though doing an increasingly better job demanding, and securing, our rights. The tables haven’t fully turned, but there’s motion, Ms. Gallagher. And you’re not going to like where this is headed.

In the meantime, Maggie, please continue exercising your right to free speech. Because the more nonsense you spew, the more opportunities rational Americans will have to see the bigotry behind those eyes.

Soon, we will live in a country where gay Americans are treated as equals. And you, fair lady, will be read about decades from now in children’s school textbooks not as the hero you fashion yourself, but as an enemy to this nation’s latest recent civil rights struggle.


On:           Sep 9, 2009
Tagged: , , , , ,
    • Andrew


      Sep 9, 2009 at 1:48 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • j

      Here here!

      Sep 9, 2009 at 1:51 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cam

      This is the typical last resort of bigots. Trying to frame disagreement with their bigotry as intolerance. I am so sorry Maggie, but my attacking the Ku Klux Klan for their beliefs isn’t intolerance. My saying that women should have equal rights isn’t me being intolerant of Saudi Arabian culture, and my attacking your beliefs that gays are not deserving of rights isn’t intolerance. But then again, you already knew that and this is a desperate attempt to portray the attackers and the intolerant as victims. Cry me a river bigot.

      Sep 9, 2009 at 1:54 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • newport

      These dialogues are great despite all the vitriol and ignorance (from both sides).

      Sep 9, 2009 at 2:47 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • terrwill

      What is this national C U Next Tuesday day with all these hateful witches polluting this site????????

      Sep 9, 2009 at 3:02 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • YellowRanger


      Sep 9, 2009 at 3:34 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • tavdy79

      But Gallagher enters this debate from a point in human history that will paint her as a bigot. As someone who erred. As a human being who spent her career and her life arguing that discrimination should be acceptable.

      As a very great Briton once said, “history will be kind to us, for we intend to write it.”

      Sep 9, 2009 at 3:56 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Popsnap

      This is one of the best articles I’ve ever read on this site. Just the right amount of hope, cockiness, and pizzaz to make it truly gay and right at the same time.

      Well done.

      Sep 9, 2009 at 3:56 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • The Friday Forty

      This part sticks in my craw: “Here’s the truth: You will now be called a hater and a bigot merely for standing for marriage as one woman and one man.” NOBODY is standing for marriage as one woman and one man, as long as divorce and remarriage are legal. Any man and any woman are free to serially marry and divorce as many times as they’d like, regardless of what their church preaches. What she really means is: “You will now be called a hater and a bigot for standing for marriage for heterosexuals only.” Which is what you should be called in that case.

      But I curious about these anti-marriage-equality gay people she claims to know. Has she noticed they’re idiots? Does that affect her position at all?

      Sep 9, 2009 at 6:24 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 1EqualityUSA

      These NOM-skulls must think that Jesus, by staying so silent on this very issue for three decades, dropped the ball somehow. So they’ve appointed themselves to be vehement pursuers of gays in His absence. Professor of Jurisprudence, Robert P. George at Princeton and his sidekick, Mags are taking up the cause that “lazy” Jesus apparently was too lax on. “He’ll be so proud of me!”, your last words before you slumber. The seeds you have sown will sprout for years and years. You’ve made names for yourselves! We’ve made a few names for you too.
      I am an American citizen with equality on my side, so slander away, bend facts, and play childish tactics, history will see you both for what you are. This will be all a bad memory for us. We’ll be writing it down for others to read. Films will be made quoting some of the lovely gems that have spilled from your very exclusive lips. Racism didn’t go away just because the higher court ruled for equality in ‘Loving’, so no doubt, after the judicial branches rule on the constituionality of this law, these lying lips won’t go away either. We all pay taxes. We are all citizens of the United States, not guests that don’t know when to leave. Equality means letting all citizens participate in this institution under exactly the same name, rules, restrictions, and responsibilities, irrespective of gender. Maggie G., I’m plain tired of your face. At least jurisprudence-man slinks around in the hallowed halls of the Catholic monastery, (in his mind). It’s time to pack up your toys and go home now.

      Sep 9, 2009 at 6:31 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • DeAnimator

      She looks like a toad.

      Sep 9, 2009 at 6:42 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • vernonvanderbilt

      “we don’t want you hurt, at least not physically”

      Speak for yourselves, Queerty. I want to see the cunt flayed alive and fed to rabid wolverines.

      Sep 9, 2009 at 6:45 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 1EqualityUSA

      Oh, by the way Mags, the red lipstick fights with the purple coat. Wrong color for your skin tone. You’re a winter.

      Sep 9, 2009 at 6:50 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • InExile

      Oh Maggie, Maggie, Maggie all that hate spewing from the pours of your skin and you want sympathy? Booo-Hoooo-Hoooo, Poor Maggie….

      Sep 9, 2009 at 6:56 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Joanaroo

      Mags, methinks if you use rechargeable batteries in yur vibrators you’ll feel better in no time!

      Sep 9, 2009 at 8:27 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Clark

      If any of you queens want to fill Maggie’s personal email account with love letters, her email is

      [email protected]

      I emailed her through the NOM website and she responded to me with her AOL account. I asked her why she’s fighting so hard to deny us rights and she asked me why I don’t just focus on rights and leave the definition of marriage.

      Sep 9, 2009 at 9:18 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz


      As a very great Briton once said, “history will be kind to us, for we intend to write it.”

      Winston Churchill was a brilliant man.

      Sep 9, 2009 at 9:20 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • BramNash

      “You will now be called a hater and a bigot for standing for marriage for heterosexuals only.”

      Marriage as one man (gay or straight) one woman (gay or straight. Hmm yeah makes total sense to call that inclusive of only heterosexuals and on top of that, bigotry.

      Sep 9, 2009 at 11:15 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 1EqualityUSA

      Can’t you just see Maggie during the Salem witch trials? Has she traveled through time to get more jollies at our expense? Go back to the photo and imagine her standing in judgement over some victim de jour. Her long sleeved, walnut juice dyed, black Pilgrim’s dress with the white collar and cuffs. Look at the Puritanical expression, worn loosely over too tight facial muscles. It’s damned spooky! Today gays are the target, tomorrow it’s whomever else is deemed, “undesirable”.

      Sep 9, 2009 at 11:34 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • stevenelliot

      FOLLOW tha MONEY the C**t makes $ off our misery…..

      Sep 10, 2009 at 12:39 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • underbear1

      Why anyone would give a rat’s A$$ what this paid propogandist thinks or says about ANYTHING, baffles me.
      Just pay her price, and she’ll say what ever you want.

      Sep 10, 2009 at 1:51 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 1EqualityUSA

      No, it’s likely trying to undo the shame of having an out of wedlock baby that sent her into a frenzy. Usually self-loathing expresses itself as tyranny. I’m really getting so, so tired of this issue. Everyone is so afraid of Justice Antonin Scalia and the other three, but I really wonder if they would surprise us all and come down on the side of equality for all Americans. This issue clearly needs to be handled at a Federal level. These fights are tearing our country apart. I’m even becoming bitter and that just didn’t seem possible two years ago. I’m so sick of these accusations of bestiality, pedophilia, and any other negative connotation drummed up for their fear-based cause. We truly need help with this. I implore straights to speak out too. I joined Americans United for Separation of Church and State. All types belong to this old organization. True conservatives see it too. We are all tax paying citizens and equality is absolutely essential to the notion of this country.

      Sep 10, 2009 at 2:27 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Schteve

      It’s one thing to say she is being discriminated against and attacked for her beliefs, but she can’t be taken seriously while denying that she does exactly the same. I would have no problem with her making that rallying cry if she just owned up to her own hate.

      @Clark: I wonder how long it will be until she gets signed up for a dozen hardcore gay porn sites.

      Sep 10, 2009 at 4:17 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bill S

      In answer to the question posed in the title of this post: Because she’s a moron. Gay marriage is legal in six states, and there are many countries outside the U.S. where gay couples can marry. So if you insist on saying that marriage is for heterosexuals only, refusing to acknowledghe the reality of gay marriage, you are, in fact, a bigot.
      “Marriage is between a man and a woman!”
      “But…what about all the places where gay couples can get married?”
      “They don’t count!”

      Sep 10, 2009 at 7:42 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cam

      @1EqualityUSA: You said “”Oh, by the way Mags, the red lipstick fights with the purple coat. Wrong color for your skin tone. You’re a winter.”

      LOL!!!!!!! So bitchy, Hilarious!

      Sep 10, 2009 at 9:57 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • H678

      You have no idea how much I want to beat the living shit out of this pudgy cunt. Fuck you, Haggie.

      Sep 10, 2009 at 10:12 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Landrew

      She’s such an internet troll. They’re just trying to drum up more donations. I don’t buy her “woe is me” act for a minute. I bet she gets off from all the attention.

      The one thing that scares me is that they’re setting up a legit-looking front in DC’s lobbying world and separating themselves from the established crazies like Dobson to give themselves the air of credibility. Clearly, we’re not buying it but I think some middle ground politicians might be, as well as some plain ignorant Americans.

      Sep 10, 2009 at 11:53 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz


      These haters all have the same mo. They lie. They call us unspeakable names. They discriminate and make no bones about their bigotry and hatred for gay people. They makes laws against us and when we protest, they cry that we are discriminating against them!

      It’s the oldest ploy in the book. All the bullies, in all the world, have always used it as a cover for their own heinous actions.

      Sep 10, 2009 at 11:55 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • paulied

      Mags loves to claim that she is not a homophobic bigot, that she is simply trying to preserve “traditional marriage.” Just once, when someone like Solmonese, Karger or Signoreli is debating this asshole on CNN, I wish they’d offer a chance to prove that she’s not a bigot by challenging her to give NOM’s official endorsement for the passage of ENDA and hate rime legislation, the repeal of DADT, and especially domestic partnerships – not marriage – in Washington. I’d love to watch her sputter and squirm.

      Sep 10, 2009 at 12:18 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 1EqualityUSA

      Dear Cam, I’m glad you enjoyed the humor. Usually I stay on point and don’t digress, but there’s something so fake, so disingenuous about this woman that I had a lapse yesterday. I’m partial to my Pilgrim-witch-burning-imagery post myself, because those who felt it was their calling to burn witches in Salem were so convinced that what they were doing was correct and in line with God’s wishes. Little did they know it was a fungus growing in the wheat that caused these “devilish” seizures. The religious hysteria that ensued due to these ergot poisonings lead to the deaths of many, in the name of God, of course. This face, this expression worn by Maggie Gallagher, has appeared to many throughout the centuries, only now, she is is donning the face of the unmerciful inquisitor. Scroll back up to the photo and take a good, long gander. For all the pain she’s caused, for all of the slanderous accusations of bestiality, pedophilia, necrophilia, polygamy, and any of the other negatives conjured up to supplement their weak case against our community, she and her brood will be held accountable. Both gay and straight people will be needed to stand up to these hypocrites. Most sincerely, 1EqualityUSA

      Sep 10, 2009 at 12:20 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz


      Thank you for your fascinating account about wheat fungus. I had no idea that this was the cause of the religious hysteria in Salem.

      Just one more example of how science and an understanding of nature has stripped away all of the “Gods wishes” type of thinking that the church has been so supportive of. They sure had a lot of “excuses” for carrying out the mayhem they have wreaked on humanity in their two-thousand plus years of existence.

      It would seem, given their history of human abuse, that as soon as we debunk one religious myth, they hasten to find yet other ones to substitute so that they can carry-on their “God’s vengence” pogrom.

      What will these criminals do to support themselves when we have stripped away every last reason for them to abuse mankind…and collect money for it?

      Oh. I know. Claim that they are unemployable, move into public housing, go on welfare, obtain free medical and dental care, have all of their utilities paid for, get a free car and gas, collect food stamps and avail themselves of every social assistance program available, for the rest of their natural lives.

      That will be the final insult and spit in the eye to the taxpayers who have always supported them.

      Sep 10, 2009 at 12:57 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Landon Bryce

      The title of this YouTube Video is so delightful I will share this boring clip of a British dancer:


      Pregnant Maggie Gallagher Dancing Gimme A Chance

      Sep 10, 2009 at 1:20 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 1EqualityUSA

      Dear Schlukitz, Don’t make the mistake of lumping all Christians in with these uneducated tyrants. Then you will be making the same mistake they do when they use blanket reasoning about our very misunderstood community. Religion is beautiful when taught properly with love. When it is used to dig up cash from the people, it’s ugly. The only halfway decent minds that emerged from the Catholic Church were Juan De La Cruz (John of the Cross), Teresa of Avila, and Fulton Sheen. Bellicose, quarrelsome, angry priests filled with anti-gay wrath should direct their disdain towards their own fellow priests, who have disgraced the Catholic Church with rampant pedophilia, child rape. It’s difficult to point out weeds in another’s garden when weeds in one’s own are so out of control. A lot of money donated to these men has gone to pay off the victims of molestation, child rape. The highest authority, the Pope, dragged his Papal heels, a scratch likely heard all the way to Heaven. Churches need to stay out of politics and tend to their own gardens. The Catholic Church is a disgrace. Church is no longer a place of healing, but rather a fear-mongering, money generator getting people to dig deeply into their pockets, by focusing on people with genetically predisposed sexual orientations. The shame in that is that the Church is driving some people away from the Word of God. Jesus didn’t say to go out and find perfect people for My flock. All people are called, irrespective of their spiritual realities.
      How should all of these concepts effect civil law, contractual law? What about atheists? What about agnostics? Should they be subject to laws based upon Christians’ adamant beliefs? I have no doubt people are passionate about the message of the Bible. Should the government be used to spread that message?If people were being fed (spiritually speaking) at Church, more people would be interested in Church. These hollow, business-like, religions have lost the ability to properly teach the Word with authority. Mega churches run by buffoons, “fly-away” rapture deceptions, cults, and sects have replaced and tainted the Word of God more effectively than anybody opting for equality under the law.

      Sep 10, 2009 at 1:35 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz


      Many more good points that you have made. I suspect that the only “decent” Christian, would be one who does not go to Church. ;o)

      Oh, and btw, Bishop Spong is another fine example of more decent minds.

      I recall watching Bishop Fulton Sheen on tv with my family in Queens, NY when I was just a teenager. I liked him very much, even though I was never a church-going person.

      Sep 10, 2009 at 1:48 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 1EqualityUSA

      @Bill S: I never thought about that. I guess after one has been told over and over and over again that we don’t count, it seeps into the subconscious like a fog. Thank you.

      Sep 10, 2009 at 1:50 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • stevenelliot

      Does Maggie eat fish on Friday? or is that too close to being a lesbian for her?

      Sep 10, 2009 at 1:51 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 1EqualityUSA

      @schlukitz: I don’t participate in the church either, but I like to read. Churches are too business oriented now.

      Sep 10, 2009 at 1:52 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • robert

      This cunt was once an unmarried mother which means she had pre-marital sex, maybe once, maybe many times. What a fucking hypocrite.

      Schlukitz, I see that ugly fucktard BramNash is everywhere on this blogsite. He just can’t shake his obsession with gays.

      Sep 10, 2009 at 3:45 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz


      If only hypocrites could just hear and see themselves and realize what dumb fucks they really are. Not only do they lack the very morals they tell everyone they should have, they don’t even have enough self-esteem to stop making such fools of themselves. These people are programmed for self-destruction.

      You’re right! That’s exactly what BramNash is.


      And his obsession is eating him up alive. He is a perfect example of the kind of people who wind-up making glaring headlines of themselves in the media daily.

      Sep 10, 2009 at 4:16 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • BramNash

      You see me everywhere? Must be because you are there too. Right, Mr Brilliant?

      Sep 10, 2009 at 4:32 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ricky

      i think the father of former unmarried mother maggie’s child is a guy she turned gay.

      her husband aint the babies daddy.

      Sep 10, 2009 at 4:34 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • BramNash

      You no more “belong” here than I do. “Queerty” may have a gay agenda, but there is nothing stating that posters must be the same.

      Sep 10, 2009 at 4:57 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz



      Leave it to you to come with a really super-kewl way of telling someone to “drop dead”. I love it.


      Sep 10, 2009 at 5:14 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 1EqualityUSA

      It’s sort of like when my siblings and I were grounded and sent to our rooms. Because my brothers shared a room, they were sentenced together. I could hear them laughing, carrying on, suffering less than me, as I remained cloistered in my lonely quarters, bitter that they had each other. Perhaps BramNash likes hanging out in our world because the stiff, unpleasant, self-righteous, hate mongers are just no fun to hang with. How many time can one hear, “God made Adam and Eve, not…” or “Hate the sin, love the sinner” or elaborate tales of bestialitypolygamypedophilianecropgeliaburglary and, a favorite, special rights. That has to be a bore! I’d rather be relegated to my sisterless quarters for an afternoon then spend 10 minutes with these ninnies. No wonder Bram is in here!!!

      Sep 10, 2009 at 5:39 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 1EqualityUSA

      Since we are all grounded together, let’s create a board game and name it, “Referendum”. With just one roll of the dice, rights could be stripped away, NOM-skulls could land in a prized square, a “Family Values” Republican can go down in flames, an “activist judge” could be appointed. Oh! You landed on a slippery slope! Guess it’s bestiality for you! Put that sheep down! Roll the dice, win the beauty pageant. Roll the dice, your crown gets taken away! Slippery slope, oh!, polygamy, who knew? Roll the dice, the Bishops and priests line up to form a wall, oh, another scandal! Get out of Jail free card. Procure property in Iowa and marry your partner, oh! Nom-skulls show up dressed as Pilgrims breathing fire and beating their sanctimonious breasts on your lawn. When is this game going to be over? Sincerely, 1EqualityUSA

      Sep 10, 2009 at 5:49 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • BramNash

      Don’t you just love gay “tolerance”? :)

      Sep 10, 2009 at 6:43 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz


      Taht was a masterpiece of writing.


      Now that’s a mouthful. If only I could learn to pronounce it without breaking-up. LOL

      Thanks for an amusing post.

      Sep 10, 2009 at 6:51 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 1EqualityUSA

      “Trochanter love” your poor secretary!

      Sep 10, 2009 at 6:52 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • robert

      Don’t even bother to email this cunt Gallagher, she’s immovable. I just received a response from her. She disagreed with everything I said even though I brought up her own hypocrisy and double standard reminding her of her past, having premarital sex and having a baby as a result. She totally ignored that part of course.

      Sep 11, 2009 at 12:38 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz


      You’re right. It’s like baying at the moon.

      it is impossible to even try to reason with people like this, especially when they skirt around issues and direct questioning if it’s too uncomfortable for them to do so.

      Their whole modus operandi, is to keep us on the defensive, so we do not have the time or the energy left to mount a good offensive.
      It’s like fighting a battle with one arm tied behind one’s back.

      My question is, when will the LGBT community learn that the best defense, is a good offense?

      Merely keeping the wolves from blowing the house down is a sucky way to live.

      Sep 11, 2009 at 2:18 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 1equalityUSA

      Robert, I thought I had a fairly large vocabulary, but now, thanks to you, “Fucktard” has been downloaded into my data banks. I didn’t want it at first. I even thought it a bit aggressive, that was, until I read BramNash’s last two posts. While doing dishes, that word just kept reemerging. It’s so perfect, agressively so. Thanks for the vocabulary enhancement.

      Sep 11, 2009 at 4:18 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • robert


      I don’t really know how we’re going to take on these haters or the kind of offensive we should use. I’m just hoping that something bad happens to this bitch,a nice juicy scandal of the Ensign, Sanford and Duvall ilk. I wouldn’t mind betting there’s a lot of that going on in the NOM already. Where’s Mike Rogers when you need him? As I said in another post, whenever you come up agains these pro-family chanting psycho talkers, there’s a skeleton lurking somewhere in their deep, dark closets aching to get out. Its up to us to make sure it happens.

      Sep 11, 2009 at 4:21 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • robert


      You’re more than welcome. “Half-wit” is another I like though its a bit more benign albeit denigrating and this bitch deserves nothing less than that.

      Sep 11, 2009 at 4:24 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz


      When the bull is busy trying to gore you, sometimes the best thing to do is to grab the bull by the horns. ;o)

      Sep 11, 2009 at 5:34 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz


      Private investigators, IRS investigations of income tax returns, court records, police blotters, sex-mongers, people who love digging up the dirt on other people…to name but a few.

      Why wait for the Colossus to collapse on it’s own, when you can bring it down with just a little nudge?

      Sep 11, 2009 at 5:43 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • BramNash

      I wonder if you folks knew how demented you sound. But yet, it’s the so-called bigots that are psychotic.

      Sep 12, 2009 at 2:09 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Josh

      @BramNash: In the wise words of philosopher Karl Popper:
      “Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society… then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them… We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.”

      Sep 12, 2009 at 6:33 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • robert

      Josh, Schlukitz……….right on!

      Sep 12, 2009 at 9:19 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • BramNash

      I stand corrected. NOT!!
      So Josh? What makes you part of the “tolerant” and not the “intolerant”? Apparently, you don’t TOLERATE people’s civil right not to favor homosexuality and homosexual relationships. Afterall, isn’t it their philosophical “orientation”? No doubt that gays would get quite huffy if anyone so dared to call their “orientation”, which may exclude someone of a different sex or some person that isn’t their “type”, bigotry. Ultimately, what the “tolerance klan” wants is for tolerance to extend to a certain point, so that even though life is NOT fair, it becomes fair for THEM.

      Sep 12, 2009 at 12:51 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz


      Please, please…go back to http://www.godhatesfags.com

      Fred tells me that you are sorely missed by the congregation.

      Sep 12, 2009 at 1:00 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz


      Obt…I almost forgot.

      Fred also told me that they have some nifty, new, godhatesfagsprotests on the radar screen and is looking to you for your idea and suggestions on how to best denigrate and put queers down.

      Once gain, just in case you mislaid it, here is the contact information.


      Do make a note of it. Fred was deeply hurt that he has not heard from you in such a long time.

      Sep 12, 2009 at 1:04 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • BramNash


      Sep 12, 2009 at 1:07 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 1EqualityUSA

      There are 1300 rights barred from gays due to misguided, power crazed, money grabbing, Christians, all when Christ, Himself said nary a word about gays the entire time He was on the Earth. That’s “intolerance” taken too far. When any group of Americans start stripping BramNash’s legal rights away, that’s intolerance that will be ardently fought against, even by us. That’s the difference between our camps.
      When Christ does return, I’d rather be holding the hand of a woman than a sign stating whom God hates.

      Sep 12, 2009 at 2:20 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 1EqualityUSA

      His blow up doll, “has a headache” this morning

      Sep 12, 2009 at 2:22 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz


      That’s way funny!

      Sep 12, 2009 at 2:31 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • BramNash

      Men and women can marry one another. Homosexuals are men and women. Ergo, they are not “barred” from any of those “rights” (in reality privileges) except by their own choice. Re: blowdoll What do you expect? You’ve been “huffing” on the helium all night.

      Sep 12, 2009 at 2:34 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • BramNash

      Thanks for the heads up Queerty. So my comments are now “awaiting moderation” because they have been repeatedly “flagged”. By whom I wonder..hmmmm. More can play that game, I assure you.

      Sep 12, 2009 at 2:49 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 1EqualityUSA

      Wad, Read Iowa’s stance on this warped mindset, “It’s no right at all.”
      Well, let me confess right now…I, I did take Resus-Annie out for coffee once. Though she was dressed very casually, she wore it well. I loved the way the sunlight played off of her artificial hair. She wasn’t much of a conversationalist though. I asked her, “Annie, Annie, are you o.k?” She just stared right through me. We never went out again because she was so rude. She didn’t even thank the waitress, an ominous sign. I sighed, 2 quick, short breaths, the said, “Good-bye”.

      Sep 12, 2009 at 2:50 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • BramNash

      I prefer you to say it in your own words how the solid logic of that statement is “warped”.

      Sep 12, 2009 at 2:53 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 1equalityUSA

      Google it yourself, Iowa Supreme Court, “No right at all” I guess we have to do all of the thinking for you here as well. Do the world a favor, get your tubes tied. The thought of you propagating has me running for compazine. I have to go back to work now, so that I can pay my taxes to a government that doesn’t treat me equally. It’s nice to know that if any woman would be naive enough to pair up with you, my taxes will pay for your special benefits. So special. You are so, so special. The Olympics could use a special guy like you.

      Sep 12, 2009 at 3:11 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • BramNash

      I am talking to you, not Google. Apparently you can’t use your own words to explain because the convoluted thinking that had to go into that theory, requires a gullible audience to fall for it.

      Sep 12, 2009 at 3:20 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 1EqualityUSA

      In applying the California Constitution’s equal protection clause, on the ground that there is a question as to whether this characteristic is or is not “immutable.” Although we noted in Sail’er Inn, supra, 5 Cal.3d 1, that generally a person’s gender is viewed as an immutable trait (id. at p. 18), immutability is not invariably required in order for a characteristic to be considered a suspect classification for equal protection purposes. California cases establish that a person’s religion is a suspect classification for equal protection purposes (see, e.g., Owens v. City of Signal Hill (1984) 154 Cal.App.3d 123, 128; Williams v. Kapilow & Son, Inc. (1980) 105 Cal.App.3d 156, 161-162), and one’s religion, of course, is not immutable but is a matter over which an individual has control. (See also Raffaelli v. Committee of Bar Examiners (1972) 7 Cal.3d 288, 292 [alienage treated as a suspect classification notwithstanding circumstance that alien can become a citizen].)
      Because a person’s sexual orientation is so integral an aspect of one’s identity, it is
      not appropriate to require a person to repudiate or change his or her sexual
      orientation in order to avoid discriminatory treatment.
      Read the decision here: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S147999.PDF
      Clearly, immutability is not the issue here, the central issue here is equal protection under the constitution.
      Any man, be he straight or gay, has an equal right to marry a woman (with some restrictions that apply equally to all) and any woman, be she straight or gay, has an equal right to marry a man (again, with some restrictions that apply equally to all). There is no discrimination, no inequality.”
      This is such twaddle. The Iowa ruling slammed this warped mindset in it’s ruling:
      It is true the marriage statute does not expressly prohibit gay and
      lesbian persons from marrying; it does, however, require that if they marry,
      it must be to someone of the opposite sex. Viewed in the complete context of
      marriage, including intimacy, civil marriage with a person of the opposite sex
      is as unappealing to a gay or lesbian person as civil marriage with a person
      of the same sex is to a heterosexual. Thus, the right of a gay or lesbian
      person under the marriage statute to enter into a civil marriage only with a
      person of the opposite sex is no right at all.
      As for harming marriage, similar arguments were shot down in Massachusetts. Your moral beliefs cannot strip others of contractual protections. We should not have any “onus” or burden, or any other hoop to jump through to justify our existence. We are American citizens and many disagree with your beliefs. There are over 1300 rights that we are being denied because of other peoples’ beliefs. This persecution has gone on long enough and we are not tolerating “outsider status” any longer, just to satisfy your comfort level. The government’s ENDORSEMENT of one group’s values, especially if others that don’t hold those views, is COERCION. Your unfounded fears didn’t prove to have a legitimate secular purpose and it failed, hence, gay marriage.

      Sep 13, 2009 at 12:20 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 1EqualityUSA

      Separation of church and state
      Separation of church and state prohibits religious favoritism and cannot promote one religion over another.

      In regard to passing judgement in cases where separation of church and state is concerned, tests are set up.

      1) the Lemon test, named after Alton J. Lemon from a Supreme Court case (1971)

      2) O’Connor’s Endorsement test

      3) Kennedy’s Coercion test

      If any of these three tests are violated, the law is deemed unconstitutional. The same sex marriage ban would be endorsing one religious view over many others, thus creating exclusionary v. Inclusive types of religious doctrine. Such a ban would coerce individuals to support or conform to a specific religions. This government entanglement is unconstitutional.

      Sep 13, 2009 at 12:22 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz


      Well said.

      Sep 13, 2009 at 12:27 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 1EqualityUSA

      60 Minutes did a piece about gays in which twins were featured. (Google video 60 Minutes, Gay, twins.) This segment, headed by Leslie Stahl, spoke of physiological components to one’s sexual orientation. Studies are being conducted about orientation being influenced by the mother’s own immune system. The more boys a mother has, the greater the chances that one of her youngest will be gay. (Population control? I wonder.) The mother’s immune system, subjected to the “y” chromosome, sees it as a foreign substance, so that by the 3rd or 4th male, physiological responses are often set into motion, a combination of genetics, hormones, and immunological systems are being studied, as to why some turn out gay. There’s so much we have yet to learn about this. I would like to know what modern day Christians think about this research and how that effects their opinions on those of us born gay. These boys are so young and innocent and natural. I cannot comprehend anyone being able to point a judgmental finger at these youngsters. Back in Biblical times, had they known, what we are just now beginning to comprehend, perhaps Paul (Saul) would have had a deeper understanding. Perhaps any religion that discriminates against gays would benefit from this research. Christ Jesus must have known, as He stayed so silent on the subject of gays. Google video this segment. It’s fascinating.

      Sep 13, 2009 at 12:32 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Josh

      Ah, I see, Bram. You want gays to be as miserable as you straights, trapped in loveless marriages of convenience? I mean, THAT is the Biblical definition of marriage, after all. “I’ll give you my daughter for 50 head of your cattle and 1/3rd of your land.” THAT is the ‘traditional’ definition of marriage. Polygamy too. “One Man, One WOman” is a relatively modern definition of marriage. So if we’ve altered Marriage THAT much over the years, explain to me the logic of NOT altering it to allow two consenting adults wgho love one another, no metter their gender, to marry. How is that a SPECIAL right, and not simply an opening of a right to ALL citizens, regardless of gender or sexuality?

      EVERYONE should be free to marry who they love.

      Sep 13, 2009 at 12:58 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • BramNash

      “It is true the marriage statute does not expressly prohibit gay and
      lesbian persons from marrying”.

      Correct!! Case closed. End of discussion.

      “Thus, the right of a gay or lesbian
      person under the marriage statute to enter into a civil marriage only with a
      person of the opposite sex is no right at all”.

      NO, it’s a right (again, privilege in actuality) that a gay person does not want. But isn’t that tough shit?

      In truth, gays specifically want the “right” to redefine “marry” as it has been defined to satisfy them. Why should it be granted is the key question? Because gays want it? What have gays done to deserve it? Pay taxes? Is that the new gold standard?

      “The government’s ENDORSEMENT of one group’s values, especially if others that don’t hold those views, is COERCION”

      So the belief that marriage should should be based on biological sex, is not a VALUE being pushed on others?

      Sep 13, 2009 at 1:10 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • BramNash

      “How is that a SPECIAL right”

      Gee let’s see…because it’s one in which you do NOT have, and are trying to convince others that you should have.

      Sep 13, 2009 at 1:13 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • BramNash

      You straights? lol. I realize that it’s important for you all to believe that no gay person would ever think like this. But I’m here to burst your bubble.

      Sep 13, 2009 at 1:14 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 1EqualityUSA

      “Case closed. End of discussion.” by BramNash. Is this a pearl you learned from your very stern mother? What kind of parents create this? You sound so unhappy. Life is short. Do you want to spend your life’s energy like this? What do you get out of any of this? When we leave these bodies, flesh will cease, gender will cease, and the spirit will be defined by how you’ve treated others. Your life seems empty. The words you write are steeped in bitterness. You are not happy with yourself. Possibly latent. Latent men hate with an intensity that gives them away. Poor self esteem prevents you from exploring any relationships, male or female. The only place you feel like you really belong is in an organization who could care less about you. I’m guessing your friends are few and so damaged that you treat them with little respect. They stay around because they have nobody else and you are opinionated enough to come off as strong, even funny at times, and free with your money. You aren’t doing what you want in life career wise, and feel too old to go back to school to change your fate. Shyness is crippling and laziness too. How does a guy in this predicament kill time?

      Sep 13, 2009 at 1:45 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Josh

      @BramNash: “Gee let’s see…because it’s one in which you do NOT have, and are trying to convince others that you should have.”

      Then in that case, let’s go back to keeping blacks from owning property, and women from voting, since those were special rights too.

      Christ, what a tool. I’m not gonna bother any more.

      Sep 13, 2009 at 1:57 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 1EqualityUSA

      Still I Rise:

      You may write me down in history
      With your bitter, twisted lies,
      You may trod me in the very dirt
      But still, like dust, I’ll rise.
      Does my sassiness upset you?
      Why are you beset with gloom?
      ‘Cause I walk like I’ve got oil wells
      Pumping in my living room.
      Just like moons and like suns,
      With the certainty of tides,
      Just like hopes springing high,
      Still I’ll rise.
      Did you want to see me broken?
      Bowed head and lowered eyes?
      Shoulders falling down like teardrops.
      Weakened by my soulful cries.
      Does my haughtiness offend you?
      Don’t you take it awful hard
      ‘Cause I laugh like I’ve got gold mines
      Diggin’ in my own back yard.
      You may shoot me with your words,
      You may cut me with your eyes,
      You may kill me with your hatefulness,
      But still, like air, I’ll rise.
      Does my sexiness upset you?
      Does it come as a surprise
      That I dance like I’ve got diamonds
      At the meeting of my thighs?
      Out of the huts of history’s shame
      I rise
      Up from a past that’s rooted in pain
      I rise
      I’m a black ocean, leaping and wide,
      Welling and swelling I bear in the tide.
      Leaving behind nights of terror and fear
      I rise
      Into a daybreak that’s wondrously clear
      I rise
      Bringing the gifts that my ancestors gave,
      I am the dream and the hope of the slave.
      I rise
      I rise
      I rise.

      (Dr. Maya Angelou)

      Sep 13, 2009 at 2:03 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 1EqualityUSA

      To Josh regarding BramNash’s behavior. Negative attention is better than no attention at all.

      Sep 13, 2009 at 2:05 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz


      How beautiful and inspiring.

      Thank you for sharing that gem with us.

      Sep 13, 2009 at 2:07 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Josh

      @1EqualityUSA: Heh, yeah. That’s why I’m done with him.

      Sep 13, 2009 at 2:18 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz


      Best way to put out a fire, is by depriving it of oxygen! ;o)

      Sep 13, 2009 at 2:34 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 1EqualityUSA

      Classic! “Best way to put out a fire is by depriving it of oxygen.” I’m done too.

      Sep 13, 2009 at 2:36 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • robert


      Josh, what these right wing shills in their anti same-sex marriage tirade always bring up is the polygamy factor that would soar if gays are allowed to marry. Yet, they never explain why islam allows polygamy and how same-sex marriage played a role in that nor do they condemn it, which goes to show what a bunch of cowards they are. Not one of their leaders would dare to go public with a condemnation. They can’t even produce one single shred of documented evidence of the negative impact of same-sex marriage on marriage and society in general, including their own, something that the half wit Bush 43 touted during his first term in office. He provided no example just how his marriage was affected by it.

      To digress, do you recall the shoe-throwing incident when Bush was in the middle east? Well, the man who was jailed for that has just finished his sentence and one of the straight Saudi Arabian sheiks has sent him a woman as a reward. You won’t be hearing the right wingers saying anything about that either.

      Sep 13, 2009 at 9:29 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • robert


      You’re absolutely right about that, JC didn’t mention us once. But….you will see how the right wing religious fascists deliberately cherry pick this and that from the jewish part of the old testament, typically that quote in Leviticus and when you go after them and ask them why they deliberately ignore other references that would make their lives very uncomfortable, then they’ll convenient say…”well….that’s the jewish part of the bible and not relevant to christianity”. Its beyond hypocrisy and bigotry. These are very sick psychopathic people. Check out this website and you’ll see these hypocrites for what they are. http://www.fallwell.com/index2.html

      Sep 13, 2009 at 9:34 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 1EqualityUSA

      Civil Marriage is Completely Seperate From Religious Marriage!

      As long as the government codifies and makes laws about Civil Marriage, all Americans must be included in those laws equally regardless of gender.

      Anything less is discrimination.

      Civil marriage has nothing whatsoever to do with religion or religious marriage. Civil Wedding ceremonies can be performed by town clerks, mayors, judges, justices, sea captains etc. without any religious involvement whatsoever.

      After the government issues a Civil Marriage Certificate, churches are then free to bless those unions or not as they so choose. There are plenty of tolerant and Progressive churches that will.

      “Judge Ye Not, Lest Ye Be Judged”!

      (Tommy News of N.Y. posted this on August 12…I liked it.)

      Sep 13, 2009 at 11:54 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • robert


      I’ve been saying that for the past five years. There are some right wing shills and gay baiters such as Michael Letterman who posts elsewhere on this site claiming that all marriages including religious marriages are civil. He bases that on the marriage license issued by a state secular government and stupidly thinks that just because a rabbi, priest, minister or imam marries a couple, it doesn’t make marriage religious. What an idiot. I was arguing with him on the distinction between the religious and the civil component, but of course, he had to skew it so he could keep on persisting that his argument was right but that gays should not be allowed to marry, period.

      By the way, what you described in your last paragraph is the French system of civil marriage wherein religious cults don’t have the authority to legalize a marriage ceremony, merely as a solemnization but not mandatory once the civil ceremony, the legal component, has been performed.

      Sep 13, 2009 at 12:02 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • KK Bloom

      “or you are a bad person who should be repressed, humiliated, hurt, marginalized and excluded.”

      And this is exactly what Maggie and her NOM-mates are doing to gay, tax-paying, law-abiding citizens. She should know a thing or two about bullying – she’s perfected the art of it.

      Sep 13, 2009 at 6:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • BramNash

      Pyrophiles pay taxes
      Pedophiles pay taxes
      Zoophiles pay taxes
      Trichophiles pay taxes

      and the list goes on…

      Point being that a society is either going to decide to restrict marriage or it’s not, in which case anything goes. And common sense shows that the factors upon which the restriction is based, is in turn based on the society’s legal system, which is turn is based on society’s value system. Thus contrary to the fantasy of the gay liberal, there is no discrete sacred/secular relationship.

      Sep 14, 2009 at 12:53 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Landon Bryce

      Dear BramNAsh,

      What happened to you, sweetheart? It must have been something awful for you to be this hurt and angry. Trying to hurt other people is ultimately not going to heal you. Please deal with whatever wounds you are nursing so that you will be able to move on.

      Sep 14, 2009 at 3:21 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 1EqualityUSA

      Have you been visiting those site again? This doesn’t sound like your mind at work. It’s not even your writing style. For one, it’s civil. two, no lude comments. Three, it has all the usual tools, “bestialitypolygamypedophilianecropheliaburglary” thrown in for good measure. What a bore. You’re grounded! Go to your room. “Case closed! End of discussion.” You’ve been a naughty, naughty boy.

      Sep 14, 2009 at 8:43 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 1EqualityUSA

      Apologies for the typos and misspellings in my last post, I wasn’t awake enough to write.

      Sep 14, 2009 at 9:12 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 1EqualityUSA

      gay: cheery: bright and pleasant; promoting a feeling of cheer.

      Liberal: broad: showing or characterized by broad-mindedness; generous,”broad sympathies”, tolerant.

      “Gay liberal.”

      Sep 14, 2009 at 10:49 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • BramnNash

      You weren’t awake and it shows in more than the typos.

      Sep 14, 2009 at 12:29 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • BramnNash

      Awww, Landon Bryce. That is soooo sweet. lol

      Sep 14, 2009 at 12:31 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz


      You weren’t awake and it shows in more than the typos.

      And you obviously have not been awake since your mother dumped you out of her womb and rid herself of the excess baggage she was obliged to carry around for nine, horrible, excruciating months.

      Poor woman. My sympathies are with her.

      Sep 14, 2009 at 12:41 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 1EqualityUSA

      Deprive it of oxygen…deprive it of oxygen…I must remember what this wise man told me.

      Sep 14, 2009 at 1:26 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • BramnNash

      I am amused by this delusion a few seem to have, that I am seeking their attention. I couldn’t care less if you acknowledge me. When I made my first comment, I didn’t need your response, and don’t require it now.

      Sep 14, 2009 at 2:12 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz


      Oops…I tend to ignore my own advice, don’t I? LOL

      Thanks for the reminder. ;)

      Sep 14, 2009 at 2:32 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 1EqualityUSA

      Silence of the Brams…I’ve got your dog, mister!

      Sep 14, 2009 at 3:17 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • freedom4all

      Maggie, have you ever heard of mirroring? Me thinks you’re doing a bang up job of it!

      Sep 24, 2009 at 6:21 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Wade MacMorrighan

      Why the hell does Maggie, NOM, and the rest opposed to CIVIL non-religious Marriage Equality behave and write as if they somehow have a monopoly on, and speak for or represent ALL religious institutions in which marriage is a part? I know, for example, many Hindu temples that fully allow gay couples to enter into a Hindu marriage ceremony; and these are legally recognized in those states that ensure civil marriage rights. Even in my own religion–Witchcraft–I gladly bless and solemnize Gay couples spiritually and legally under the auspices of the Old Gods (we call our ceremonies “Handfastings”). Someone really ought to bring this to the public’s attention in a media blitz! Even in terms of history Maggie is incorrect, because we have evidence that same-sex marriages WERE entered into throughout antiquity, and even during the Middle Ages. Even before the oppression of the indigenous Native American nations, the “berdache” (essentially a gay shaman) was greatly sought after and deeply loved as a spouse and by his community; and the arctic Chuckchi shamans are equally sought after as spouses within the historical record. What she is espousing, offensively enough, is Christian superiority!

      And, that she would DARE to declare that anyone who supports marriage equality (ie. all gay people and our supporters) ought to be, “repressed, humiliated, hurt, marginalized and excluded” is outlandishly disgusting and hate-filled. Too bad she didn’t publicly declare this on live television where it would have given her hatred mass attention and probably have rendered her a pariah!

      Vut, I have a question: Hose BRILLIANT idea was it for NOM, ety al. to start playing the victim card, as being oppressed by we *evil* Gay folks?! Dayum! That was a genius move if ever I saw one. But, I still believe that we need to go on the offensive, and show the world and our state how we are being abused and victimized, and how our history even bears this out. A fabulous documentary is being produced on early gay life in the US called “The other Side: A Queer History”. Sadly, most people don’t have any idea what it’s like to be gay living in a society that generally doesn’t support us. hell, many don’t REALLY understand WHY we NEED marriage (note I didn’t say “want”).

      Of course, we also need the support of African American civil rights leaders, because MANY black people are desperately offended and ENRAGED if we DARE call ourselves a civil rights movement because they are black and we can (apparently) hide who we are. We also need to find a common ground with them, desperately. Many don’t know how, historically, we fought alongside them, risking our lives, to secure their civil rights in the deep south. Even Corretta Scott King fought for Gay Rights as a Civil Right, invoking her late husband’s name. But, hardly any African-American men and women are even aware of this… Moreover, it saddens me that an oppressed people would actually seek to oppress another minority! How could we get through to them about that? It’s so very heart-breaking.

      Sep 27, 2009 at 5:38 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.

  • Copyright 2016 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.