A Shrug For The President’s Marriage Moment

 

Warning:  I break my own rules and get political in this post.    If you don’t want to read about my politics,  why not visit someone else today.

I find myself wondering if perhaps I am the only gay man who wasn’t  quite moved by President Obama’s recent statement of support for gay marriage.      I have had two long term committed relationships.    My late partner Joel and I were registered as domestic partners (it enabled us to get on each other’s health insurance at work) for many years until his death in 2004.     My current partner Ron and I emphatically do not wish to marry,  as it would greatly reduce our income (from Social Security disability benefits).

While as a matter of civil rights I strongly support gay marriage,  for myself I frankly do not want a legal marriage.    For nearly fifty years now I have been a sexual outlaw of sorts.   Literally until 2003 when the Supreme Court finally invalidated all remaining US sodomy laws.    And in a mythical or poetic way,  I still consider myself something of an outlaw,  and regard my huzband and our family as question of our choices in a creation that we ourselves make every day.      I understand I think at least partially the desire so many homosexuals feel these days to be legally married and as respectable as anyone else.    But that wasn’t really a choice for me growing up and at this late date,   I find myself unwilling to let go of my inner outlaw and settle responsibly into the middle class.

Honestly?   I found little to celebrate in Obama’s remarks.    I agree with the commentators who are stating that full acceptance of gay marriage is inevitable.    And certainly,  that is I think as it should be.     Given that younger people support gay marriage rights at a very high rate,   Obama’s coming out in favor of gay marriage seems to me simply a political calculation,   a way of putting a divisive social issue into play to energize his core supporters.      It is true that gay and lesbian Americans have seen our rights expanded greatly during Obama’s term in office.    But so often it seems as though all progress on gay issues comes in fits and starts,   three steps forward then two steps back.    If it serves to energize and motivate younger voters,   Obama’s marriage moment may prove to have been a bit of good politics.   Though I frankly wonder how much play the issue will get as the campaign continues and so many more pressing issues  vie for our collective attentions.

Advertisements

84 comments on “A Shrug For The President’s Marriage Moment

    • fwiw, Peter, I don’t think that Obama is any more or less sincere than any other politician or President. (remembering in 2003 when the Republicans went to a great eal of effort to put gay marriage bans on the ballots in a dozen states to drive conservative turnout for junior’s reelection)

    • although I agree a lot more should be done to ensure gay rights, you might consider the only other option. I think the president should do more, the fact that’s it’s even an issue is absurd as it should a right already, but the alternative is very frightening.

      • Robin, when I realized I was gay it was considered a psychiatric disorder and having gay sex was a crime. Now we are debating gay marriage. We really have come a very long way in a very short time.

    • I hear you, though in many ways I have to say that gay marriage in not a non-issue. But I think you are right that by the next time we start up the elect a new President thing it will be so widely accepted as to not be an issue 🙂

  1. It has been an exciting decade watching real progress being made for the legal formalism, but you are right that there is the full spectrum of interest in that formalism – sexual identity isn’t the only concern, and marriage is only one expression of a committed relationship.

  2. Well, I can’t say I am for gay marriage, I think a person’s sexual preference is not worthy of tax breaks. As far as I am concerned, I don’t want to know a person’s sexual preference at work or anywhere else. Politicians don’t care about issues, they select issues based on collecting votes. Doesn’t matter if it’s gay rights, religious rights, or anything else. When people think they are real they are buying the propaganda.

    • Your cynicism strikes me as a reasonable response to modern politics, though I don’t in fact share it. However, if they are dispensing tax breaks to some (and for some couples in some situations, marriage can confer Enormous tax breaks) it seems only fair that they be offered equitably to all.

    • Sarah, while I don’t share the previous commentators extreme cynicism, I am perhaps jaded enough to meet this historical moment with a shrug. I understand the jubilation. I just don’t really share it 🙂

    • mmmm. Obama won the last election by motivating millions of young people to vote, many of them for the first time. Seems to me if he can get tons of young people scampering off to the polling places, it could be a winning strategy again.

  3. WE ALWAYS ENCOURAGE POLITICISMS, ahem, excuse the Kaps.
    If there is one irony that is not being considered right now, at least with the breathtaking raising of funds yesterday, is that the Hollywood Entertainment hierarchy at the end of the day would like to have laws like SOPA and CISPA pass that tool with copy and expression laws on the internet and infringe on a bevy of other civil rights in the long run, such as privacy. Do I support him making a stand on gay marriage as a whole? yes yes yes but does it really mean something in the face of all other matters? hahaha… no.

    • Great comment. Imho, your comment is a FANTASTIC illustration of how to leave a topical comment and connect the post you are commenting on to your own cause or issue. I would LOVE to hold you and this comment up as an example to some of my Marketing friends who superficially understand the value of commenting on other people’s blogs to create links and perhaps get noticed by others. That you very clearly got my point and seamlessly related it to your point. BRAVO!!

  4. “Well, I can’t say I am for gay marriage, I think a person’s sexual preference is not worthy of tax breaks.” -another commenter.
    Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaand does this mean you are also against straight heterosexual couple getting tax breaks too or are you just a hypocrite without knowing it? Sorry needed to add that.

  5. It was a shrug from me as well. Firstly, I don’t understand why the leader of the one remaining super power would take a position at this time. And secondly, the irony is while so many gay men and women are fighting to get married, so many lawful ungay men and women, are fighting to get out of it.

    • It really is a mess at this point. Each of the 50 states makes their own laws regarding marriage, yet heterosexual marriages are treated pretty much equally in most states, regardless of where they were preformed. So we have lots of cases of gay couples getting married in one state, then moving to another state and finding that courts there will not grant them divorces, because their marriages are not legal in their current state of residence. I can’t honestly say that I am a big advocate for federalizing marriage law, yet the current status quo seems untenable.

  6. You’re right, it’s politics. Obama said that because it was in his interest to do so… That’s what politicians do, they act in their own self interest, however I take heart from the fact that politicians here in the UK and in the US think this issue is one that can get them support.

    Politicians rarely do anything for selfless or altruistic reasons, but it’s still a good thing!

    (Oh and you can do politics as often as you like as far a I’m concerned :D).

    • you’re right Emma, it is a good thing. It really is kind of amazing to me that just within my own lifetime we fags have gone from marginal pariahs to very soon something like real equality. that’s Huge. (and I don’t usually talk about politics because I just get too angry arguing with people sometimes 🙂

  7. Regardless of a person’s politics, same sex marriage is a step forward toward civil rights equality, Many people, like yourself Alan, prefer to not have a legal marriage. That is your and their choice. It also makes sense that those who prefer a legal marriage, including same sex couples, should have that choice as well.

    • You’re certainly right, Wayne, that it is a choice and I really am glad that we are moving so quickly towards a time where legal marriage will be just another choice, for everyone. (When we were marching in the 1990’s I seriously doubt I would have believed the day would come when most Americans support same sex marriage. What a long strange trip it’s been 🙂

  8. As a Canadian who lives in BC, the issue of gay marriage was “put to bed” a while ago. The Obama speech was a “tune-out” for me, despite the media hype.

    As for your life and choices… Eh’, buddy… do what ever you want to, it’s all good.

  9. Living in Cologne, Germany, one of the main cities where homosexuals live, I am used for years to see couples, married or not, walking around. Gay marriage is no longer a topic here and all is going well. So: let the people choose what ever make them happy together! And give them the same rights in daily living.

  10. Why should a particular group of people not be allowed to get all the benefits (and sturm and drang) of marriage if that is how they wish to express their love – it’s bad public policy to go down the exclusionary road. We should all have the right to take a chance on marriage – at ruining our lives…or maybe finding someone we are delighted to wake up to every day 😉

    • lol. Thanks so much for sharing your thoughts, Mary. I tried to make clear that I personally don’t want to marry my “spouse”, though I will continue to fight for the rights of anyone who does. As you point out, marriage is no panacea regardless of the participants’ sexuality.

  11. I really don’t think the increase in rights and respects for gay folk has anything to do with his administration. If it had, then you would see America as a trail blazer in gay rights which is not the case on the world stage. Canada has been much more proactive in gay rights and I wouldn’t even call Canada a trail blazer. The real force behind the transformation of North America is the people and the Internet. The Internet simply has provided a soap box for us all and makes it impossible to sweep issues under the rug. Obama may support gay rights and I applaud him for that. However, his administration is in no way responsible for them.

    • Candace, I don’t think that is entirely fair. Obama and Biden DID work very hard to eliminate the military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy which deeply offensive to many of us in the gay community. His DOJ also decided to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act. Politics has always been the art of the possible and given the intense war like conditions now prevailing in the US Congress, I think this is a fair record of accomplishment to take back to the gay community that supported him in the last election.

  12. I wish he had gone farther and condemned the idea of putting questions of equality under the law and simple fairness up for a vote. Rights (such as equal protection) are inalienable, not subject to majority opinion. The next thing the Republicans here in NC will want to put up for a vote is whether it’s OK for states to decide whether to allow employers to discriminate against gays, or to ban gay couples adopting,

    • I know that “the deep south” which includes North Carolina and my native Louisiana will be some of the last bastions of intolerance. But by and large, I hope with all of my heart that most of the rest of the US and most of the rest of the global North….is moving on and your neighbors who (just barely) voted against gay rights one last time will come to seem rather like the new David Duke. (one time KKK candidate for Louisiana governor)

  13. I’m sort of glad Obama said it. Though I thought he had a funny sort of look in his eye as he did. Cameron said it too, though he has had protests of the variety ‘The Bible says a marriage is between a man and a woman’ (it doesn’t, actually) and is rumoured to be letting it known his stand is negotiable. I do hope this isn’t true. How can this all still be an issue in 2012? Weary, weary and weary. Let’s move on to other political issues that really need sorting out like the deficit. Like poverty. LIke the health service. Need I go on?

    • Laura, it seems to me that your comment comes closer to understanding where I’m coming from than most any of the others. I have been fighting for gay rights my whole life. This is one comment by one politician. I’m glad he said it. Heck, it may prove to be a turning point. But compared to the elation I felt at the March on Washington in….was it 1997….when I spent an entire day in DC and except for a group of Fred Phelps protestors, surrounded by a HUGE gang of cops– the only cops I saw all day, every person was gay or very gay supportive. I hugged a lesbian stranger in a hotel elevator. That day was just HUGE for me in the struggle for gay rights….this is just another blip.

  14. I am not agree with same sexual marriage. I agree with you that doing this is outlaw. Off course this opinion based on my religion value. Obama receives a lot of protest from Muslim countries around the world.

    • jumatil, this is one of the founding principles of the US. It’s okay for you to think it’s wrong. It’s okay for you NOT to marry someone of the same sex. But it’s not okay for you to force your religion on ME, and laws based solely on RELIGIOUS principles and beliefs are what’s at issue. There is no other compelling reason, that I can see, to prohibit same-sex marriage.

      Freedom to practice our own faith – or NOT – that’s why we’re able to co-exist peacefully, in the US – we were largely founded on the principle of freedom to worship God as we are called to do, not as the State orders us to do. To come to God free of coercion, torture, threat, or the deprivation of civil rights and liberties. How would you feel if you lived in the US and were forced to comply with Christian laws as opposed to secular ones? So long as your religion doesn’t demand that you kill me, you are free, in the US, to practice it openly and without interference from the government. Your neighbors don’t have to like it, or you – it’s a Constitutionally guaranteed right. BUT with that right comes the obligation to RESPECT others’ beliefs – be they Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Atheist, or any other faith – and let them be.

      Is it really THAT hard??

      I often think atheists will be the only people allowed into Heaven. Some days, it seems they’re the only ones not committing some atrocity in God’s name.

      • Thank you for your comment regarding freedom in US. But unfortunately, recently CAIR protest to Pentagon regarding teaching military about Total War on Islam. Is it freedom in US? I agree with you that we should respect the other’s belief. But unfortunately, US become the country that not friendly for Muslim like before.

      • I can not take on myself the task of trying to defend the actions of the United States. Over the years of my life I have, as I said, more often been fighting against the powers that be here in the US for my own rights.

        But leaving aside the government, I think you would find that there are many people here in the United State who do value religious freedom and would treat you respectfully as a neighbor, even though they disagree with you about some really important things.

        (Thinking I need to go to the library and read the Koran…I studied the Christian bible with some very smart people and can rebut most any fallacy but I never read the Koran)

      • And let me be brutally frank – many people in the US don’t feel that Muslim countries are very friendly to the US, either. 🙂 We’ve heard “Death to USA” chanted too many times to be fond of Islamist POLITICS. That doesn’t mean US citizens are anti-Muslim (some are, but some are, as I said earlier, anti-women, anti-gay, anti-black, anti-anything-that-isn’t-like-them – I don’t think that’s unique to the US, by any means).

    • jumatil, I’m not familiar enough with that particular point to go into it – but I won’t argue it, either. Some of us are battling this one on the home front, too. The “fundamentalist Christians,” or “religious right,” in this country are definitely NOT SPEAKING FOR US ALL. But they are vocal and they are large. They would tell us how to worship, how to vote, how to (not) have concern for our fellow man, what we can(not) do with regard to our own bodies – the list goes on and on. They are no friends to those of other faiths, and they are no friends to women.

      • A President is helped or hindered by Congress, by the way, corporate and special interest groups, the Supreme Court, the very wealthy – and citizens who take an active interest in what’s going on around them, who vote, and who don’t feel so jaded or disenfranchised that they figure their vote won’t count anyway.

      • Thank you for your explanation, at least I know that in America there are a lot of people that still have respect for the other views (religion, opinion, belief etc).

  15. Living in Texas, I see this from a slightly different perspective. It was a risky move, politically. We seem to be far more focused on controlling what grown-ups can do in their love lives or with their own bodies than we are with, say, the healthcare or economic situation in this country. For the President to announce, publicly, that over the last few years he has listened, watched, and changed his views on marriage equality is, in my opinion, a rather brave thing. It is NOT a slam-dunk, politically. If YOU are shrugging, it could be just the thing to give the GOP the edge they need.

    I have a dear friend who was in New York, this past week, to get married. Her spouse had to move out of state to be ordained in her faith; the two of them had to go to yet another state to marry. As layanglicana says, “How can this all still be an issue in 2012?” It seemed the President’s remarks were a lovely wedding present. Blunting the insult North Carolina issued on the same day. I really cannot fathom the fear that must be at the root of people’s hatred and obsession with this issue. I don’t get it.

    The tide may be turning – it was only within the last 50 years or so that interracial marriage was made legal, right? But the tide turns slowly. I can’t help but applaud any politician willing to publicly say, “You know what? I was wrong, and it’s time we recognized this as a civil right.”

    • Holly, it seems to me that change always comes in fits and starts. And to an extent, I am somewhat willfully ignorant of the prevailing attitudes in many parts of the world. Having lived for a time in Cambridge, Massachusetts then in the Seattle congressional district represented by Jim McDermott (one of the most liberal members of Congress) I mostly live among people who mostly agree with me about most things. (Some of my Seattle friends thought me insane to move 40 miles down the road to the next county, but here I am….you can’t live your whole life in a progressive cocoon.)

      I hope with all of my heart that Obama’s remarks will be a turning point in this struggle. Given how moderately most all of the Republicans are in their comments about this issue lately, it really may turn out to have been a shrewd political move.

  16. What a huge wave of cynicism by a lot of folks, while I have no way of knowing someones heart it seems that the 24 hours news cycle has warped any sense of history we as a country might have.

    It really should matter to people in the same way that proclamations against slavery and for women being allowed to vote mattered, both were also propped up by those who said God ordained slavery and the subservience of women.

    It makes me sad how so many see this as trivial, concocted or political. In the end it is the deed that will be remembered along with its efficacy

    • I agree, craig. It is too fashionable to be jaded and cynical (understandable, but all too trendy, too easy, and too symptomatic of an apathy that smacks of exactly what Martin Niemöller wrote in his now famous “First they came…” statement). What is it they say about people who forget the lessons of history?

      • oh my. I will readily fess to jaded or cynical, but fashionable and trendy….are so Not my kind of gay words. I kind of hate to think that after all of those years of wearing that pink triangle and talking constantly about gay rights to anyone I could get to listen has some how atrophied into apathy, however fashionable that apathy may be.

      • I do think we have a tendency to want to stick to a comfortable sort of apathy – or at most, play “armchair quarterback” – and when I say “we,” I mean ALL of us. Not gays, straights, men, women, blacks, whites, whatever – just people. There’s this niggling fear, I think, that if we rock the boat there will be a backlash, a tsunami, that will wash over us and take away whatever comfortable complacency we have that’s keeping us from hauling off and smacking the circling sharks with a fist. It’s all good, so long as they’re eating smaller fishies or other sailors and not US.

    • I think so. And we’ve already seen the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” I don’t see that this is going to help Obama, politically. To be honest, the folks who are ANTI-gay marriage are much more likely to mobilize their like-minded voters at the polls. (I wish I didn’t believe that, but it seems to me they fear for the fate of their whole way of life, here.) It seemed a sincere statement, to me.

  17. Think that people must learn to respect difference and leave different people to live normal live if time ago nobody speaked about gay’s marriage that doesn’t mean that people don’t exist or they don’t live together…

      • And what I mean by that is not that I would advocate for more political dishonesty and posturing, but the man has stated a clear idea of change, of right and wrong, and explained WHY he has now come to a conclusion that is different than the one he’s expressed in the past on this current, hot-button issue. It’s a polarizing view, to be sure.

        Heck, he’s the first black President of the US. That should NOT have been a “polarizing issue” at all, during the last election, should it? Yet it was, and remains so. Religion shouldn’t be a “polarizing issue,” either. Unless your religion is advocating cannibalism, terrorism, or genocide in God’s name, then really – what difference does it make? (Kennedy, as the first Catholic President of the US, was a groundbreaker in this arena.) So let’s have these conversations and not dismiss them as “politically calculated.” Everything in politics is “politically calculated” to some degree. Big deal. The real question is, how will voters RESPOND?

      • Give me an honest opinion, not some contrived statement made to get votes because your poll numbers are sagging.

        If the statement is what he honestly feels, good for him. I really don’t care who marries who(m) as long as its not exploiting children, GO FOR IT! Want 10 wives/Husbands? Be my guest….

      • He’s a politician and he made what turns out to be a canny call on the right side of history? Seems to me it gets him re-elected.

      • Honest opinion? I think he expressed one. But in politics, you’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t, and the only time anyone’s going to believe that the words coming out of your mouth are not shrewdly calculated to win votes is when you’re retired and writing a tell-all autobiography.

        Probably ghost-written by an up-and-coming would-be political speechwriter.

        Then the public gets to accuse you of writing what you wrote only in order to sell more copies of your book and make scads of money, so you can be even more out of touch with the “little people.”

        Whatever.

      • so glad to see that cynicism bug going around the room didn’t miss you, either, Holly. Thank you SO much for all of your thoughtful comments in this thread.

      • Just because I catch a cold now and then doesn’t mean I’m always sick. Just because I’ll buy Afrin doesn’t mean I DON’T think the first person to CURE the common cold will have a hit taken out on him within 24 hours by someone in the pharmaceutical industry.

        Jaded cynicism, apathy, and a negative attitude are highly contagious. The only cure I know of is to TRY to avoid folks who ALWAYS seem to suffer from them. For the folks who pick up the bug now and then, there’s chicken soup and kindness. 🙂

  18. The president’s statement does not come as a surprise. Some expressed disappointment. I believed this was his position for a long time. I wish this was not a political issue, but somewhere in our not so distant history we let the genie out of the bottle.

    I do not believe the definition of marriage should include same sex relationships. I see this from a biblical perspective, as opposed to a political or civil rights view. Given the many same sex relationships out there, I am okay with states making provisions for those relationships whether you are talking about probate related matter, insurance, benefits, etc. As secular institutions, the states ought to provide for those in same sex relationships. My thinking lines up with Dr. (Rev.) Tony Evans who was interviewed a number of times last week on CNN. See: http://rich-twoedgedsword.blogspot.com/2012/05/tony-evans-on-cnn-talking-about.html

    Cheers!!

    Rich

    • Rich, It sounds as though we actually agree that the government should get out of the business of religious marriage, while providing the benefits of civil marriage to everyone. Or am I mis-reading or mis-construing your comments?

    • And I’m sorry – that truly was not meant to be a snarky comment. You wrote that you see this from a BIBLICAL perspective. It seems to me that you believe that marriage is an institution that somehow originated with the Bible, and that narrowly defines the kind of “marriage” you think deserves legal recognition. If I’m wrong about that, please enlighten me.

  19. I view it as a simple political maneuver of sorts, and not one to put much weight in at that. I think it’s too early to pine for the LGB vote, seeing as he’s already Party candidate in the General Election. I think actively pursuing the vote this early could work against him in the end.

    I agree that great strides have been made during his term in office, but attribute them more to initiatives at state level. You were fortunate to be involved with a more progressive company making available that insurance option.

    Truth be known, the first thing I did upon seeing/hearing the soundbite was to pop over to ALJAZEERA to see if any escalated circumstances arose as a result of the recent speech by Lebanon Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, followed by a Google search for news of any U.S. foreign actions. (of which there thankfully were none!) Circling back to my beginning feelings, I thought his statement may have been made to create a lot of chatter among media outlets and the public.

    Our government and media are quite adept in such diversionary tactics. A couple of personal beliefs and favorites occurring under Clinton term (and I loved Clinton) are…….
    The Waco Texas Siege. Ask any amount of people / Why was the Branch Davidian compound invaded? I venture to guess 90-100% will say it was because of all the ILLEGAL FIREARMS on the compound. The media coverage was mostly guns this and guns that. Well……..Oddly enough, David Koresh was a licensed firearms dealer.
    While everyone was so caught up in the whole Monica Lewinsky scandal,…How many of you were aware that Clinton launched Cruise Missile strikes on Afghanistan and Sudan?

    You just never know.
    Enjoy
    Bill, Lynn, and Friends of Bewitched!

    PS: Lay Anglicana, join us in Massachusetts where you can take part in our mandatory health insurance plan.
    Your “News and views from the pews” tagline is fantastic! I would love to have your permission to use it.

    • actually, Bob, the health insurance was a result of living in King County, WA which legally required employers to offer that benefit to “domestic partners” long before our state legislature passed similar (everything but the name marriage) measure. The companies we worked for were good companies, but it was local law that got us those benefits.

  20. As a recently married straight guy, I am bummed about the marriage penalty. Simply but, our taxes went up. Personally I’d prefer to be domestic partners.

  21. As the father of a wonderful young woman who had the priveledge of marrying her partner due to the fact she lives in Massachusetts, I am thrilled by anyone who states their support of others having the opportunity to do the same. Is this the most important step in the move towards a nation often determined to prevent others from sharing the ‘rights’ others wish to deny them? Of course not. It is merely something that should be. That’s all.

  22. Thanks for expressing your thoughts so well. Since the announcement I have been watching people for whom it was a shrug, a political move only while a couple of people have decided they will vote for Obama because of it. Yesterday I had coffee with a gay doctor who is 76. Her comment was that what Obama is doing with gay marriages is more important than anything else he is doing/not doing.

    So glad we connected because of Com’s list, Alan. Look forward to “getting to know you . . .”

    • So nice to meet you, as well, Janet. I’m intrigued that the older lady felt this was the most important thing Obama is doing. Perhaps she is right.

  23. I respect your personal choice not to marry, but for many of my gay friends this is something they want and need. From where I sit in Virginia — a key swing state in this election — I think you are dead wrong about this being a no-risk political move for Obama. Yes, it gains him more passionate support from LGBT & younger voters & maybe progressives in general. But those people were going to vote for him anyway and, while volunteers are nice, he is probably going to have enough money to pay for organizers if he has to. The decision doesn’t pick up any voters, and it definitely energizes the loony right to more actively support Mitt. And, I’m sad to say, there are a lot of independent/weak Democrats who are anti-gay. I live just across the river from DC, yet even here, I know people who casually spew their homophobic views at parties. I even know a few who will leave an event if they realize a gay couple is present. As I’m in the darkest blue part of Virginia, I can only imagine how much worse that is downstate.

  24. For the ones whose opinion is that this is a political, pre-campaign move, I am not so sure about the benefits. On the contrary, I believe this bold and gutsy declaration will actually hurt Obama’s votes in a very traditional and family-oriented America. It’s indeed a double-edge sword Democrats are playing with. GOP leaders on the other hand are taking a more conservative stand on the topic, which is pretty darn smart in this case. My respect to all Gays and Lesbians.
    Ernie Arias

  25. Pingback: It’s MY Life or Writing About The Gay Stuff | Libdrone's Thoughts and Musings

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s