bloc's tags:

The page you were looking for no longer exists

"Marriage means something," said one of the speakers.  This speaker then told of the sudden death of his partner of thirty-four years. They had a trust; they had papers of all kinds; they had planned and prepared for every contingency - except for a lack of respect and regard for their 34 year commitment to each other.  The funeral home insisted they could not cremate this man on the word of his partner of three plus decades; they needed an OK from a family member.  No document, however legal, mattered on that loss and shock filled day after the unexpected death of this speaker's partner of 34 years - thirty-four years.

Think about that when you next hear that contracts and papers are enough and marriage isn't sacred or right for these people.

We are so often told by opponents of marriage equality that they do not oppose our right to have basic legal protections. What they do not understand, because they have never had to understand, is that without legal marriage, gay couples are always subject to the veto of family members who have more say over our spouses under the law than we do.

source

del.icio.us Digg reddit StumbleUpon

Comments

  • Lucytorial said on Nov 15, 2008....
    Bloc, its an interesting article you found there.  By way of posting this I assume you are pro marriage for ALL society?
     
    I for one think its archaine not to provide the same legal opportunities to same sex couples as singles and hetrosexual couples.
     
    An investment in life with another deserves the respect of our legal systems as surely as any hetrosecual religous couple applying for a divorce.
     
    Which brings to mind the fact that here in Oz well at least in Victoria its now legal for same sex partners to adopt children.
  • Lucytorial said on Nov 15, 2008....

    Forgot to mention it wouldn't matter if it was called marriage or civil union, the court system via way of the government need to create the same bills of law we have here for any couple invested in an intimate relationship for over 2 years receives the same protection of law as if they were married.

     

    If I were a lesbian it wouldn't matter a rats.. as long as I could share the joy of my commitment to my partner socially and enjoy the benfits of the legal system should they either die or we decide to split regardless of wether or not I was married.  Minimum years for de facto provide the same legal binding paper work as a marriage certificate here... thank god.

  • lfbno7 said on Nov 15, 2008....
    There's right and there's wrong. Most people just can't tell the difference. Gays deserve to screw up their lives by getting married the same as straight people do.
  • Lucytorial said on Nov 15, 2008....
    BWA ha ha ha Ifbno... stop it, I'll pee myself laughing....
  • winterslight said on Nov 16, 2008....
    this is how i see it...
    what one does before god is a church thing and i no that in the eyes of god they are not doing right!
    but with that said that is for god to decide and for god to judge not us!
    i belive that when me and my hubby asked god for the right to merry and we did a personal small thing with only god that  had meaning to us.
    then 1 week later we stood before a man with a stamp said yes yes and signed the paper and now the goverment nos that if he screws up i pay and same with me!
     i belive that the paper is for the goverment and all should be given the right to be put in the same taxes and be held responisble for there love ones.
    most gays have no family in there life but there friends and there lovers. and if they were dieing  the law is that  they are to call some strange who cut them off and wished them dead to now decide life or death.,... if you ask me and they pick death could that be call murder????
    i say  keep god out of it cause he will decide and it is not  our right to be the judge and place ourselfs in his power. cause then you become  in my eyes a sinner.....
    so hell ya give them that paper and rights!
  • husbandhater said on Nov 16, 2008....

    Wow Bloc are you gay or was that a quote from your source(Not that it matters I still love ya anyway and amazed at how your mind works:~)? I love what you wrote up there and I do think it's disgusting that they put everything in order just for the funeral home to try and give the finger to the surviving lover. I think if this man Legally put things in order and according to the specific laws currently on the books his wishes should have been respected as the lover was only reiterating the wishes of his man.

    I do think that travestys such as this one is the reason why somethings got to give but as D6fer said before what is wrong with a civil union which would give the same protections and basically is a marriage sanctioned by the state. What do you think it is when you elope and get married by a judge(I did and my preist was very angry with me for not having a Catholic wedding)? That can also be considered a civil union as it was not done in a C.H.U.R.C.H.

    You've got to pick your battles and if you can win on one small front which most are o.k. with the civil union idea. Why not except that for now and then proceed with taking on the centuries old machine that is the "CHURCH" and changing ages old doctrine.

     If you get the civil union(in my state you have domestic partnership and there was a court case just won by a gay woman who had been in a relationship for YEARS with her common law spouse they had brought property together,joint accounts and the such. The family got 9-11 money and gave her none,took the house etc.,. and trampled her wishes. And the brother was just told by the courrts that he had no right to the house some of the 9-11 funds etc,., and she was awarded 1/2 of what he got as she could prove she lived with her lover in a relationship for all that time. So headway is being forged) then isn't this progress? You can still refer to your signifigant other as your wife inlaw or husband inlaw if you like. Personally I like to refer to mines as my assholeinlaw.

    I don't see what the hoppla is about as you have basically got  your wish and are fighting on to get it recognized by God which NO MAN can give you only the devine being him or herself as so brightly put by Winter up above me. To do so would be sacralige and an insult to God as we are NOT the devine being.

    So YES to CIVIL UNIONS as man can give you your rights down here but as far as what GOD can give you that is btwn you and he and your judgemnet day.

  • winterslight said on Nov 16, 2008....
    husbandhater  wow well put!
    i have alot of people grrrr at me for how i feel about the hole merry thing!
    i wore my wedding rings before i got the paper work done.
    what we did was on the day we pick the rings up we had a nice alone weekend planed. and we decided to get the bible place it between us with hands holding on the bible. we told god what we wanted from eachother and told eachother our love and hopes and dreams. and we asked god are we doing the right thing. so if a phone rang or the door got knocked on or any noise came up we would of said ok we need to wait! to us that was special and with the only judge needed!
    then  later like i said we did the papers. nothing special cause we had that we shared that special moment!
    we would of never got the papers but we have kids and things need to be right incase something ever happened! so ya let them stand before a paper stamper. or a friend who went on the net a boat captain. any of the above..
    but i hate to say this part not a church!
    and for all you church people out there that read this and judge! guess what you will have to answer for that to god! that is his job not yours! he asks that you show kindness, not push your belifes onto people! only share what you belive!
  • husbandhater said on Nov 16, 2008....
    Read the articule and came to tears over the AIDS story. You should have shared that story with us. It was beautiful(Singing their song) even in it's ugliness(the family and their actions) and moving. I still say that their wish was granted with the civil unions idea though. It is too bad that couples like that didn't live to see it take fruit.
     
    Wow Winter that is sooo romantic.( Husbandhater is Wiping tears away....). I hate to say not a church also. I wanted to cry when my preist(Who I loved dearly) was angry. I wanted him to be happy for me and I wanted to go about a church wedding but part of me died the day he said I should have come to GOD 1st as I thought I already had.
     
    Your right the point is to share your faith not impose it upon others. The Bible belters will see no brownie points for imposing as we must all come to except GOD on our own terms and live in his way and light. THAT is why he gave us freedom of choice and THAT is what it is all about. What fun is it if you FORCE someone to love and be obediant to you? It's about the equivalent to rape. Which is probably why God didn't instill that in us. He wanted us to come to the conclusion on our own. I think he might have wanted to see us become enlightened and the transformation that comes from it.
  • redryder said on Nov 16, 2008....
    To all the commentors above, I truly respect your rights to your beliefs and attitudes.  I now hope you will respect my right to my belief.  Most of our laws in this country are based upon our Judeo-Christian heritage.  That is the way it is and will be until a majority of our citizens see fit to change our laws.  I looked up the word marry in Webster's New World Dictionary.  "to join as husband and wife"  Can peope of the same sex be a husband and a wife.  I believe same-sex marriage is an oxymoron.  It simply cannot be termed a marriage.  Now if the state wants to recognize same sex couples to form a civil union then that would be the way to go because that is what two people wanting to live together, would be, it would be a union between two people.  Incidentially 
     
    In Mark 10 Jesus said, "a man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife."    That is a marriage in God's eyes.  Am I speaking for God, not hardly, I am merely quoting what God says in his holy word.
     
    This is why as long as we as a society (the majority believe in the Bible's definition of marriage) will never vote to allow same-sex marriage. As an e vangelical Christian I believe we are not denying gays a "right"    We simply believe no one has a right to something that does not exist. 
     
    I will close by saying to those who disagree with me, please respect my right to my beliefs as I respect your right to yours.
     
  • winterslight said on Nov 16, 2008....

    dear red you are right! in your own trems.

    but the laws were wrote so long ago.

    i hear people say church and law serpret! <sp>

    ok so if that is the case then  god sould be left out of this!

    if he cant then all church rights should be taken away! like ie what you tell a minster shall not  be brought in to court. because they are not a dr.

    and then lets say ok they need to pay taxs and stop making millions of free dollars!

    you cant have it both ways! you cant!

    yes you can say what the bible says. but you can not make it a law in the mans world.

    because in a way it is. and there is so many diffrent types of church that who is right to say they are right...

    you truely cant.... noone knows for sure until the day we see god..

    does that mean i want to lay down with a woman? no does that mean i agree with it? no. but it is not my place to tell a friend i cant love you because your gay!

    i love my bible but you also need to understand how much has been left out how much was changed when the words went from one race to another.

    how much was put in there to put fear also!

    cause god didnt write the bible man did... man wrote what they were told..

    oh i will get yelled at for this one.. its like the game telephone... as the story goes along it changes and things get added and taken out!

    so with that i read the bible and no in my heart that god doest want me to judge noone! he wants me to take my hand and share it with everyone. no matter who or what they are!

    i belive gays have a right to take care of eachother. to have a life and enjoy it!

    i personaly could not tell someone i am sorry i no you have this planed out but cause your not BY LAW IN BLACK AND WHITE. piss off leave.. i couldnt do it..

    i belive in god but i dont belive in church! there is to many fake  people mixed in there that its not for me!

    hate seeing the man on the box holding a bible yelling gay be damed when he goes home shuts his door. beat his wife drinks the night away.

    just no when you point that finger you have more pointing back at you!

    so red! please dont take what i say as i am hating on you. i type like i talk so  i can sound rude...

    faith is great and hun the ones of us who know god you no in your heart that this if a fight left to law not god!

  • husbandhater said on Nov 16, 2008....
    Mucky aka Re I think Websters may get a new definition soon. But I respect what you said and your beliefs.
  • redryder said on Nov 16, 2008....
    winterslight:  Thanks for being courteous.  I respect your right to your views.  Many people say we cannot be sure of what God's intent was in the Bible because it has been translated too often.  I do not subscribe to that belief, if that were true then the Bible would have no validity.  I believe the translators from the original Hebrew to the Greek have been pretty consistent in what was said.  I also believe the Bible was written by men who were inspired by the Holy Spirit.
     
    I appreciate your comments, we disagree but at least we did it in a civil manner, and I really respect that.  Just for the record I respect all God's children gay or straight.  I have a good friend who is gay and I value her friendship a great deal.
  • Cussane said on Nov 16, 2008....
    Quite frankly, i think this discussion is somewhat idiotic, for hetrosexuals to complain about gay people getting married when our divorce rate is somewhere in the 40% percentile, and adultery is so common place that we now have web sites dedicated to helping "married" couples find other married people to have an affair with somehow takes away our right to bitch, lets get our own shit together then and only then can we start telling others what marriage should be.
     
    As for the religous side, not being a church going person, i cannot give you a theological agrument either way, however i do know that there are some churches that will marry gay people and some will not. however for those who quote the bibal as an agruement agaisnt, remember the bible is a book of faith, not fact, in if you are going to take one portion of it and say this is what god says, then you must take it all....so kill anyone who works on the sabbath, own slaves, etc etc.
     
    bottom line, let them marry, if god really is agaisnt gay marrigage then they will answer when they meet thier maker, isnt there a line in there somewhere about judge not less you be judged
     
    Cussane
  • RollingC said on Nov 16, 2008....
    I tend to lean more towards tradition in the marriage respect but I also realize that there should be some kind of legal right for same sex couples.
    Rc
  • andora said on Nov 16, 2008....
    I agree that gay couples deserve all the same rights that married couples do no matter what

    using the bible to make law is against our constitution

    christianity had its day in the political spotlight over the past 8 years in the US and we are all licking our wounds and ducking...need i say more?
  • satanx said on Nov 16, 2008....
    how about marriage to dogs and cats, or horses?
  • one_wired_kitty said on Nov 16, 2008....

    Just give 'em a civil union with the benefits of marriage ...

    .. as for me ... I'm not comfortable using the word "marriage" ... so I won't.

    I'm not really worried if you agree with me or not ...

  • satanx said on Nov 16, 2008....
    sex and sin is on he line!
  • bloc said on Nov 16, 2008....
    hey everyone, I don't have time to really respond right now, but I wanted to say that I didn't write that, it's a quote, and I'm not gay. Remember I had a baby recently :)
  • RandolphWinstonTheThird said on Nov 16, 2008....
    Paul Keating the great Australian Prime Minister when pushed for his thoughts on gay marriage said "Two blokes with moustaches and a spaniel do not make a family." I fully agree with him. Though i think marriage in all forms is outdated and pointless only really being kept alive by women who lets face it love pomp and ceremony as well as aires and graces. Men on the other hand can take and leave marriage and only do it out of the good of their hearts for the women. So thats why today you have women accusing men of being commitment phobes for not wanting marriage well i say what if they want a long term defacto relationship but not marriage what is wrong with that. 
  • winterslight said on Nov 16, 2008....
    bloc hunny thos that no you no your not gay and you was just shareing what you found!
  • Anomalous said on Nov 16, 2008....
    Thanks Bloc for posting your message.
    ............................................................
    I'm glad to see someone talking about this topic. Gay marriage needs to be a legal right, and no, civil unions are no real substitute. (As Bloc pointed out, they DON'T guarantee the same rights to the two parties involved that marriage does.) Plus, if you were to have a civil union that was somehow equal (which is certainly not how things stand now), then what would be the point of calling it a civil union instead of a marriage?

    Of course, I'm referring to the legal aspects of marriage as a government-sanctioned-and-regulated institution. As far as how your place of worship chooses to make these distinctions, that's a completely separate issue (legally anyhow).

    Let's get hypothetical...put yourself in someone else's shoes for a change.

    Imagine if your own marriage (assuming you were married) didn't virtually guarantee your status as your child's legal guardian or as your partner's legal caregiver. Or what if you wanted to get divorced (like over half of ALL married couples do)? Wouldn't you want to have very clear rules and precedents that would guarantee you the same rights as those that legally married/ legally divorced couples would normally have? Wouldn't it irritate the crap out of you if you couldn't be considered married due to the color of your skin, or your hair, or your religion, or your partner's religion? (I know that would piss me off big time!)

    Hmmm...and why should heterosexual married folks get a federal tax credit that homosexual couples in a civil union probably can't? Again, that's just pure discrimination. Gay couples raise children and pay taxes, too, so they deserve the same breaks that heteros do.

    I mean, there's nothing wrong with having a civil union  instead of a marriage if that's what the couple chooses to do, but if that's what's being offered up to them in place of a full-fledged marriage, that's what's called discrimination, and it's unconstitutional.
    .........................................
    Did anyone see when Ellen Degeneres questioned McCain about his acceptance of civil unions but not of marriage for homosexual couples? She was tactful and polite, but she managed to gently point out how similar that notion is to the old racist, segregationist policies of America's past. I think her comment had to do with using separate drinking fountains or sitting on the back of the bus--something along those lines--and I couldn't have agreed more.
    ..........................................
    My final thought on this topic for now:

    satanx, I hope you were only joking, because there's no way in hell (pardon folks) that gay couples marrying has ANYTHING to do with people ever marrying animals. That will obviously never happen.

    Now, polygamous marriage? Well...I could see that possibly becoming legal in the U.S. some day, but still, that's not some inevitable result of legalizing marriages for gay couples, and frankly I don't see most of America warming up to that idea any too soon. But gay marriage, in my opinion, is going to prevail soon. It's just a matter of how soon.
  • one_wired_kitty said on Nov 16, 2008....

    Randolph ... really? So I love "pomp and ceremony"?? Nice to see you "know" me so well ...

    Gee - I guess getting married in jeans and a tee-shirt at the court house is "pomp and ceremony".

  • MissMimi said on Nov 17, 2008....
    satanx, why is it that whenever we have a discussion about gay marriage, somebody always trots out that idiotic statement?  What about cats, dogs and horses?  Are heterosexuals, under the marriage laws we have now, allowed to marry farm animals? 
     
    I cannot believe I am even dignifying your statement with a comment, but this just makes me see red.  It also makes it very difficult for me to take those who believe as you do seriously.
     
    If it was a joke, and it wouldn't surprise me if you were dead serious, it wasn't funny.  Just pathetic.
  • redryder said on Nov 17, 2008....
    hh:  Thank you, I just noticed your comment, sorry for the delay in responding to your courteous comment.
  • bloc said on Nov 17, 2008....
    @rollingC
    "I tend to lean more towards tradition in the marriage respect"

    People say this often but I don't know what is meant by it. What is traditional? If we go back a bit "traditional" meant that you could only marry people of your own race. If we go back a bit farther "traditional marriage" essentially meant a property exchange between families.


    @redryder
    " Most of our laws in this country are based upon our Judeo-Christian heritage.  That is the way it is and will be until a majority of our citizens see fit to change our laws. "

    I don't believe the implication of this statement is accurate. If our laws were mostly based on judeo-christian heritage then we wouldn't have freedom of religion would we? I mean that's like 3 or 4 of the ten commandments. "no other god before me ..." etc etc. Also, adultery would be illegal wouldn't it? And doesn't the Bible say that banking is essentially a sin?


  • silverwhisper said on Nov 18, 2008....
    the opposition to gay marriage brings out the very stupidest in some people, sadly, like the lunacy of prop 8 out in california.

    ed
  • Lucytorial said on Nov 18, 2008....
    Randolph you really are a rare specimen, special huh?
     
    I love the way you paint everyone with the same brush, rather intelligent aren't you.  Geeze and I thought there was another Aussie here with a mind that they used...
  • redryder said on Nov 19, 2008....

    @bloc:  I could fill a page of all the laws in this country that could be traced to the Bible, and you could do likewise with your position.  Sufficie it to say the majority of the country thinks gay marriage is an example of moral decadence.(In my opinion)

    .

  • silverwhisper said on Nov 19, 2008....
    you are incorrect, redryder. based upon what polls/surveys would someone make that statement from a position of knowledge?

    ed
  • redryder said on Nov 19, 2008....
    silverwhisper.  How many states have banned gay marriage?  How many have approved them?  I do believe the number of states that have banned them far outnumber those who have approved them.  The only two Conn and Mass that have approved them were done so by the courts, not the voters in those states.  That is what I based my statement on, not polls or surveys.  Polls and surveys can be constructed to basically say what the pollster wants the results to be.  I do believe some are helpful in gauging public opinion, but as I said the number of states banning gay marriage far outnumber the ones who have legalized it. 
  • curmudgeon said on Nov 19, 2008....
    I say government has no business marrying people. Government has no business differentiating between single people and married people for tax purposes, estate purposes, social engineering purposes or any other purpose.

    If churches want to marry folks, that's a private, religious, intra-community affair. Some churches may want to marry gays, others may not. Let people sort this out for themselves.

    Government ought to stay the hell out of it and quit conferring benefits upon people in living situations it irrationally prefers.
  • silverwhisper said on Nov 19, 2008....
    redryder quoth:
    the majority of the country thinks gay marriage is an example of moral decadence.

    see, this is the part about which you're incorrect. you made a very specific claim, that people oppose gay marriage because it is to them an example of moral decadence. and that kind of statement absolutely requires a poll to substantiate b/c without it, it's just your individual baseless speculation.

    ultimately, the # of states that practice fear rather than tolerance is of no moment to me. however, that you would try something like assigning a cause to a number without being willing to investigate the why really weakens any kind of statements you might make re: the cause, at least to me, anyway.

    have a pleasant day. :>

    ed
  • bloc said on Nov 19, 2008....
    @curm
    well, there are some legal issues that are currently addressed by marriage. Inheritance, hospital visitation, life and death decisions, etc. How would we handle these without the government creating laws for them?
  • bloc said on Nov 19, 2008....
    @redryder

    there are definitely laws that are based on Christianity, usually the ones I disagree with like sodomy laws and other that encroach on the bedroom. We are a democracy and sometimes religious beliefs percolate up into laws.

    However, the foundation of this country is the Constitution and one of the fundamental teachings of Christianity are the ten commandments. These stand in stark opposition to one another. Many of the commandments set out to forbid other religions. The Constitution specifically allows other religions and intentionally sets America up as a country of no specific religion.
  • redryder said on Nov 20, 2008....

    sliverwhisper:  What we have is a disagreement.  I think a large number of states has more credence than a poll, you don't.  That's ok, we agree to disagree.

    bloc:  "many of the commandments set out to forbid other religions" the first two do, but the remaining 8 do not.  If you think otherwise, so be it. 

    bloc & silverwhisper:  thanks for the civility.

     

     

     

     

     

  • crybabylu said on Nov 20, 2008....
    I would like to see all people having equality.  Laws that ban same-sex marriage, in my opinion are discriminating against them.  They should have the same benefits as everyone else.  I don't care what it is called.  marriage or civil unions, however, if it is going to be civil unions, then it needs to have the same benefits that marriage has.
  • bloc said on Nov 20, 2008....
    @redryder

    I think you forgot this one

    "You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me,"

    and this one

    "You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name."

    and this one

    "Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy."

    I think The Constitution contradicts all of these.
  • redryder said on Nov 21, 2008....
    bloc:   When the President takes the oath of office does he or she place their hand on a Bible or a copy of the Constitution?  By placing their hand on the Bible they are implying the Bible comes before the Constitution.  Or maybe the Constitution rests on the foundation of our society, the Bible?  Food for thought.  I admit these are opinions of mine.
  • bloc said on Nov 21, 2008....
    Well, it's not a requirement that they put their hand on the Bible, but it is a requirement that they swear to uphold The Constitution. There have been politicians sworn in on other holy books.
  • redryder said on Nov 22, 2008....
    Can you imagine the furor if a President-elect refused to place his or her hand on the Bible when swearing to uphold the Constitution?  If God allows this country to exist long enough there will probably come a day when one wants some other book to place their hand on.  The rate we are sliding it may not be all thatl long.
  • curmudgeon said on Nov 22, 2008....
    bloc - your question goes to the point of marriage as it has been viewed through a greater portion of history and across cultures:

    Marriage is not about love and life commitment (value-laden terms better relegated to church and other forms of community) so much as it is about property rights, guardianship and child custody. In my view, tax law ought not distinguish between people who willfully make lifestyle choices.

    All of these things are more efficiently governed through contract law. Indeed, ancient Hebrew laws regarding marriage (See Leviticus) treat marriage more along the lines of an exchange of property than anything else. Islamic weddings have the families gather privately for the signing of contracts before the party begins. That's about it. This romantic notion of love, honor, obeisance and lifetime commitment has no place in government policy.

    If our government honestly divorced itself from the notion of "marriage" and simply treated co-domesticity as a matter of contract law, we might not have these problems. Every couple would simply sign a pre-nuptial agreement tailored for their particular life circumstances (property rights, child custody and guardianship) and as far as government is concerned, that would be that.
  • husbandhater said on Nov 22, 2008....
    Hey Bloc Clay Akin just had a baby too. Hahahaha. Congrats on the baby.
  • bloc said on Nov 22, 2008....
    haha, good point husbandhater ;)

    @curm
    well said. 
  • pickersplock said on Nov 24, 2008....
    Okay here is my answer, and probably no one is going to like it but.........
     
    Marriage is, in the hearts and minds of most Americans, a religious term; like it or not.
     
    That being said, the state and religion are, and should always be separate.
     
    Therefore, all couples should receive a civil union from the state or license to wed.
    Call it what you like.
    Then, if your church marries you, so be it.
     
    I should also point out, that any couple can not demand that a church marry them.
     
    Mr. P is Catholic, I am not.  Fifty years ago, our marriage would not have be recognized by the Catholic church.  As it stands now, according to them, most people aren't actually married, because the ceremony didn't take place in the Catholic church.
    I don't happen to agree with that, but it's their right.
     
    That being said, give everyone a little time to get used to the idea.
    Protesting inside churches or smearing excrement on church doors will not get people to see you point of view.
  • bloc said on Nov 24, 2008....
    @pickers

    sounds good to me.

Comment on "Marriage or civil unions for gays?"


(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)

Every week, I delve into our local city entertainment/op-ed/newspaper....
Weak on foreign policy, sold out to the nutty left on domestic policy, now lets fuck with national security and have trials for terrorists in federal courts....
The only human being on the planet that can eject a huge turd, yet somehow dupe the media into thinking it's a golden egg that smells like roses....
He didn't even try to answer it. What would be your answer? Were we right in dropping the bombs on Japan?...