Skip to content

Homosexuality Trumps the Homeless

This is shocking, at least from the standpoint of the gospel. Apparently there is some legislation in DC that would require employers to not discriminate against same-sex couples (i.e. they’d have to give them medical benefits). In response to this the Catholic archdiocese has threatened to shut down their public social services to the homeless unless the legislation is changed.

The fear is that they would be forced to “extend employee benefits to same-sex married couples” which they feel is an unacceptable encroachment of the state into their religious freedom. Note however that they aren’t concerned that they’d be forced to employ homosexuals, only that they’d be forced to give medical benefits to current employees who are in same-sex relationships. So, apparently its ok to employ the gays as long as they don’t have to recognize them as such in some official sense.

Now, lets just bracket the issue of whether or not Christians should accept same-sex marriage or not on the basis of Scripture. What should be outrageous to all Christians, regardless of their perspective on that issue is the way in which the poor and the marginalized are simply a bargaining chip in an ideological game over homosexuality. Is it really more important to the church that it be able to not give medical benefits to those in gay relationships than that it care for the poor as Jesus commanded us? Because that’s what’s really be being said here. This is no heroic moral resoluteness that refuses compromise. Apparently, at least for this archdiocese, being able to keep their hands clean of “endorsing homosexuality” is more important than caring for those whom the powers are making nothing. All Christians should be horrified by this callous casting aside of the poor for the sake of ideological posturing. Truly disgraceful.


  1. Theophilus wrote:

    Furthermore, even if the church strongly disapproves of homosexual partnerships, couldn’t extending them health coverage be construed as “loving enemies”? I’m sure the church also doesn’t endorse a fair bit of what the clients of its charitable organizations do, but they serve them anyways as a way of showing the love of God to people “while [they are] still sinners”. This is a really dumb move.

    Friday, November 13, 2009 at 10:36 am | Permalink
  2. Halden wrote:


    Friday, November 13, 2009 at 10:40 am | Permalink
  3. sdf wrote:

    To be fair, there’s more than a little ideological posturing on your own part in your framing of the issue here. If this were some other attempt by the State to affect the constitution of Christian communities and their freedom to define their own social relations we’d likely be hearing a very different argument, either praise for their resistance to the State or complaint about their collusion and submission. We might even be treated to the name of Constantine being turned into an -ism and hurled as an epithet.

    The only real question in regard to the State here is does it have sovereignty over every intermediary association within its borders to the extent that it may define even what each of those constituent parts must recognize as a “family” (it is families, after all, that are eligible for health benefits from employers). Don’t conflate that with our internal dialog over what is to be recognized as family and proper Christian caritas in regard to homosexual couplings. Your argument in this post speaks to the latter, but not the former, and your conflation of the two makes possible the extremely uncharitable and inaccurate conclusion that, the diocese believes it “more important…that it be able to not give medical benefits to those in gay relationships than that it care for the poor as Jesus commanded us.”

    Friday, November 13, 2009 at 11:17 am | Permalink
  4. chris rice wrote:

    Yeah Halden I don’t think you’re reading this article correctly. Church based shelters with city funding have to wrangle over a host of moral issues. I don’t see that they’re using the homeless as a bargaining chip here. If anything churches will just have to drop their city funding and work via private donations. This happens all the time. If anything this illustrates why many Catholic Workers don’t incorporate as nonprofits and stay small and out of the reach of city services.

    Friday, November 13, 2009 at 11:25 am | Permalink
  5. Halden wrote:

    If the diocese is going to stop ministering to the poor on the basis of the state interfering with its definition of the family (to use your way of putting it) then it is utterly clear that they care more about presenting a united front regarding their definition of the family than caring for the poor. That’s not ideology, that’s simple undeniable fact. Any attempt to obfuscate on this point is just that, obfuscation.

    And your first paragraph isn’t relevant to the issue. The state isn’t telling the church what it must believe, only how employers must treat their employees. The church could easily “suffer” this definition for the sake of doing the work of the gospel but instead have chosen not to. I find this tragic and reprehensible.

    Friday, November 13, 2009 at 11:25 am | Permalink
  6. Daniel wrote:

    “In response to this the Catholic archdiocese has threatened to shut down all of their social services to the homeless unless the legislation is changed.”

    The archdiocese is the group who is using the homeless as leverage. The homeless and homosexuality ought to be a completely separate issues, but the Church powers are blurring the lines. I don’t think Haden is saying anything about how homosexuals should be treated by the church, rather he is saying that the Church is responding in a most un-Christlike manner by refusing to help the poor because the State is doing something the Church doesn’t like.

    Friday, November 13, 2009 at 11:26 am | Permalink
  7. Halden wrote:

    Do you have some other information on this? Because from what I found it seems clear that they plan to discontinue their services if their demands are not met.

    Friday, November 13, 2009 at 11:28 am | Permalink
  8. Scott wrote:

    I am curious — does the Catholic organization(s) in question employ divorced & remarried persons? Do they extend medical benefits to their spouses? If so, wouldn’t they be inconsistent in refusing to extend medical benefits to the same-sex spouses of partnered gay employees?

    Friday, November 13, 2009 at 11:50 am | Permalink
  9. sdf wrote:

    The diocese is not going to stop ministering to the poor. It is just threatening to no longer do so with State funds (which will instead go to some other group) if doing so requires that it compromise its voice and identity as church. Again, if it were another issue that were causing this fault line (say, requiring a loyalty oath, reporting of illegal aliens, giving up the right of sanctuary or the inviolability of confession, requiring funding for employees’ elective abortions as conditions for receiving funds) I suspect we’d be hearing a very different argument here. You just accept the claim to dominion of this particular Constantine and the diocese does not.

    Friday, November 13, 2009 at 11:51 am | Permalink
  10. Hill wrote:

    You are assuming that these charitable vehicles are the only means by which Catholics might serve the poor in DC, when it could be argued that they were a bad idea in the first place, indeed Constantinian, precisely because situations like this might arise. I’m afraid the outrage here trades a little too heavily on the uncritical sympathy extended by those afraid of appearing too conservative to anything loosely affiliated with the extension of rights to homosexuals. The abortion issue might just as easily been substituted (and indeed, these situations have been considered) in clarifying the problems with submitting to these sorts of precedents. I’m not attempting to justify the actions of the Archdiocese here or defend an account of their immaculate good faith on the issue, but this in fact a more complicated issue that are you are admitting.

    Friday, November 13, 2009 at 11:54 am | Permalink
  11. Halden wrote:

    Do you have a source on that? I’d be fine with them rejecting state funds and continuing their service through other means. But all I’ve heard is that the services will be withdrawn.

    Friday, November 13, 2009 at 11:55 am | Permalink
  12. Halden wrote:

    Yes, I’m sure you’re right that there are many Catholic ways of serving the poor that are not part of this particular drama. True enough.

    That said, if the info I’ve found is correct, I still think the actions of the archdiocese here are wrong.

    Friday, November 13, 2009 at 11:57 am | Permalink
  13. David St. John wrote:

    With sdf, let me echo some kind of defense for the Roman Church on this one. Considering the long track record of charitable work from this diocese, the principle at stake here is not commitment to the poor, but the nature of the Church to govern itself with regard to marriage, love and sexuality. Or, more universally, whether religious argumentation has any say in such matters. If these arenas are judged to be “non-religious,” the (exclusive) domain of the state, then Christians have forfeited a considerable measure of self-governance – along with any kind of religious argumentation in the public square.

    Moreover, let me say that the guilt is only secondarily that of the Catholics. I agree, the diocese is placing itself in a compromising moral position. But if anyone is using the poor as a bargaining chip, it is the DC government, which is dangling the poor over the pit in order to advance its own conception of gender equity against the conscience of charitable organizations. Christian groups have already been pushed out of the adoption agencies in the United Kingdom, and Christians are having to fight against the dropping of the tax-exempt status for churches which reserve the right to refuse certain weddings in their sanctuaries. Surely the DC lawmakers aren’t so daft as to know they are forcing the issue – at the expense of the needy.

    The issue of religious freedom is on the table, and both sides just threw in homeless social services. Shame on the Catholics, but true shame on the state.

    Friday, November 13, 2009 at 12:01 pm | Permalink
  14. Scott wrote:

    I’m curious, though, to know Halden’s response to the point that “they were [arguably] a bad idea in the first place, indeed Constantinian”.

    Friday, November 13, 2009 at 12:03 pm | Permalink
  15. Halden wrote:

    Yeah, I agree, the church shouldn’t generally be taking state funds for its programs. Its a devils bargain and now the chickens are coming home to roost it seems.

    Friday, November 13, 2009 at 12:05 pm | Permalink
  16. sdf wrote:

    The first sentence of the LAT article: “The Catholic Archdiocese of Washington said Wednesday that it would be unable to continue the social service programs it runs for the District of Columbia if the city refused to change a proposed same-sex marriage law.”

    These aren’t Church programs in question. They’re city programs that the diocese administers. They’re only a small part of Catholic Charities works.

    Friday, November 13, 2009 at 12:15 pm | Permalink
  17. Halden wrote:

    And clearly that is very different from what you claimed earlier, namely that the church would continue to run the programs but just “no longer do so with State funds.”

    I doubt the church is planning to take care of all the people that will be adversely affected by their withdrawal from these services. That’s the point. Maintaining care for these people is simply less important than being able to toe the line on making sure that same sex couples aren’t somehow endorsed by the church.

    But I do agree that they shouldn’t have got themselves in the position of running state programs to begin with. That was the Constantinian mistake, to be sure.

    Friday, November 13, 2009 at 12:25 pm | Permalink
  18. Thomas wrote:

    I wonder if the same level of faux outrage would eventuate if DC denied licenses to Catholic social services who did not fold to them on social issues which violate Catholic doctrine.

    Anyway, this is largely an organizational issue; the private and public funding is there, the question will be the extent to which it is aggregated and the nature of co-operation between public and private religious care for the homeless. Any claims that people are just going to stop caring for the homeless are instances of hysteria.

    Friday, November 13, 2009 at 12:30 pm | Permalink
  19. sdf wrote:

    What I actually said was that they were not going to stop ministering to the poor. And they’re not. This is just a portion of their charitable work. Also, these particular services would not disappear (presumably). The same services would still be provided by the city, its programs would just be administered by some group other than the Catholic archdiocese.

    Friday, November 13, 2009 at 12:41 pm | Permalink
  20. Halden wrote:

    I quoted what you actually said.

    And while these services might not disappear permanently (I guess we’ll find out), they would at the very least be significant disrupted, at least for some time. The idea that this will just have no effect whatsoever is simply ludicrous.

    Friday, November 13, 2009 at 1:35 pm | Permalink
  21. dan wrote:

    Whose funds should the church take for its programs?

    Friday, November 13, 2009 at 1:37 pm | Permalink
  22. Halden wrote:

    Well, the church’s members ought to support the church’s ministry to the poor I would say.

    Friday, November 13, 2009 at 1:43 pm | Permalink
  23. tim kumfer wrote:

    1. thanks for pointing to this Halden. I think you are right on. Similarly, USCCB and the NAE have been stalling Christian support for immigration reform b/c of the potential inclusion of a measure which would allow same gender partners to be reunited.

    2. Regarding the discussion…have you guys spent any time with the poor in DC? I share your concerns about Constantinianism, but it is both stupid and callous to claim that the church should not use any government funding for their social services. I just left a church in DC which has established nearly forty ministries which serve the marginalized there. (Visit to learn more about the awesome history of the Church of the Saviour.) Some take government money but many do not. Is it wrong to take Medicaid for your residential clinic which serves the homeless? Is it wrong for your early childhood programs to get head start funding? When Reagan and co. swoop in and cut everything state-run, what are God’s people to do but take the crumbs and try to care for those who they can? This is exactly where Resident Aliens shit falls apart. Hugs and kisses from Christian college grads living in a group house can only go so far. It takes discernment to know when being in, with, and for the world requires being over against it and when it does not.

    Friday, November 13, 2009 at 2:11 pm | Permalink
  24. sdf wrote:

    You represented what I said about as accurately as you’ve represented the D.C. Catholics here. Your hysterical judgment regarding teh gay seems to be clouding your perception of what others are saying.

    I’m pretty sure no one (including me) has either said or implied that a disruption of the status quo would not also result in a disruption of services, only that the specific programs in controversy are not being ended (only possibly changing hands) and that the diocese is not abandoning its service to the poor as you’d claimed/assumed. That you (incorrectly) assumed the latter, and most everyone else didn’t, suggests you’ve got a boatload of bad assumptions/prejudices coloring your judgment here.

    Friday, November 13, 2009 at 2:15 pm | Permalink
  25. Halden wrote:

    Umm, all I did was quote you, but whatever.

    Sure, clearly I’m the one who’s judgment and prejudices are clouding things here. Right.

    And you absolutely did imply that there would be no disruption of the services. Repeatedly. When you say things like “only possibly changing hands” is quite obvious that you’re trying to dismiss the fact that the church’s withdrawal here will significantly hurt the care to the poor who benefit from these services.

    Why don’t you just admit that its more important to the archdiocese to toe the line on the gay issue than to maintain care for the poor who were ministered to under this programs? That at least would be honest.

    Friday, November 13, 2009 at 2:24 pm | Permalink
  26. Dude, come on. [Addressed to everyone in this thread.]

    Friday, November 13, 2009 at 2:28 pm | Permalink
  27. dan wrote:

    Yeah, they ought to, but they don’t. So what do we do? Shut down programs until Christians figure out how to live as Christians?

    Friday, November 13, 2009 at 2:51 pm | Permalink
  28. Halden wrote:

    No, of course not. That’s why, whatever should have been the case, the DC Catholics are wrong to be doing what they’re doing.

    Friday, November 13, 2009 at 2:53 pm | Permalink
  29. Andrew wrote:

    Does anyone else read the comments in increasingly higher internal voices as the thread continues and gets skinnier and skinnier?

    Also Halden, I believe there is an obvious Biblical precedent being used by the Catholic church here: the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. Not only did God smite the shit out of them for being super gay but I think I remember something being said about poor people and I’m pretty sure that what was said was that there was just too many of them.

    Friday, November 13, 2009 at 2:57 pm | Permalink
  30. Halden wrote:

    You have once again won comment of the week.

    Friday, November 13, 2009 at 3:01 pm | Permalink
  31. sdf wrote:

    And why don’t you just admit that it’s more important to the DC city council that the Church bow its neck to Constantine’s demands re the sexual revolution and the secular state’s claim to supremacy in general than is providing services to the poor in the city? You wouldn’t for the same reason I won’t give your question more than the roll of the eyes it deserves: because it’s ridiculous and histrionic and an embarrassing bit of rhetorical tripe.

    “Possibly changing hands” speaks accurately to an ugly situation in which, as you say, some of the ill consequences of the church’s entanglement with the state are coming home to roost. I do apologize for disrupting your uncharitable and, it seems now, consciously dishonest rant against the Catholics in DC, though. You may now proceed with the attribution of evil intent and accusations of bad faith that are required for your argument here to make any sense.

    Friday, November 13, 2009 at 3:38 pm | Permalink
  32. Halden wrote:

    Consciously dishonest? Please. You’ve consistently changed your story about what’s going on here, and then done rhetorical dances about what you supposedly didn’t really say. Then, when called on it you simply obfuscated and made shrill and baseless accusations. If you want people to take you seriously you’ll have to offer more than infantile tantrums.

    My argument makes sense because it is pretty obvious and simple. It doesn’t require your bad faith, or a belief in the virtue of the DC government (which I don’t subscribe to) — of course the government is Constantine, what do you expect?

    The situation makes clear that the church believes that avoiding all appearance of endorsing homosexuality is more important than the ill effects on the poor that their withdrawal from these social services will cause.

    That’s not crazy or hysterical. That’s just the truth.

    And no need for the disingenuous apologies. I’d far rather get some reasoned arguments, but that ship has obviously sailed.

    Friday, November 13, 2009 at 3:43 pm | Permalink
  33. sdf wrote:

    The dispassionate observer would disagree (and has already in this thread [not meaning me, but the majority that has disagreed with your reading of the situation]). Your position is the clear and obvious one you claim it to be only if one discounts out of hand the diocese’s own explanation for its stance and insists instead on bad faith.

    And my “story” hasn’t changed once. But I’ll leave that, too, to the dispassionate observer.

    Friday, November 13, 2009 at 4:38 pm | Permalink
  34. Halden wrote:

    I doubt many “dispassionate observers” — as if there are such things — have commented here. But the vast majority of the comments I’ve read on the topic, here and elsewhere, don’t confirm what you continue to baldly assert.

    Moreover I haven’t discounted their explanation out of hand. I’ve simply examined it and it clearly has some major problems. But its precisely any sort of actual examination of the facts of the case that seems to be disallowed by your predetermined commitment to argue for whatever the church does.

    My position is clear simply because its, well, logical. If you refuse to see that on the basis of your unquestionable ecclesiological commitments, I suppose there’s nothing I can do for you.

    Friday, November 13, 2009 at 4:45 pm | Permalink
  35. Auggie Webster wrote:

    Some good Hauerwas quotes which may be germane:

    “I had a colleague at the University of Notre Dame who taught Judaica. He was Jewish and always said that any religion that does not tell you what to do with your genitals and pots and pans cannot be interesting. That is exactly true. In the church we tell you what you can and cannot do with your genitals. They are not your own. They are not private. That means that you cannot commit adultery. If you do, you are no longer a member of “us.”

    “Of course living a life of nonviolence may be harsh. Certainly you have to imagine, and perhaps even face, that you will have to watch the innocent suffer and even die for your convictions.”

    So, if I’m following Hauerwas, the RCs can 1) tell folks what to do with their genitals and 2) tell folks what to do with their pots and pans. Apparently, they don’t like what the DC gov is telling people what they can do with their genitals, so their taking their pots and pans. It just may happen that the innocent will suffer. This is not “pleasant” for the RCs, but they deem it necessary.

    Friday, November 13, 2009 at 4:49 pm | Permalink
  36. Halden wrote:

    That, at least is the kind of honesty I can work with.

    Friday, November 13, 2009 at 4:52 pm | Permalink
  37. Auggie Webster wrote:

    As a relevant aside, I actually work through an RC organization helping the homeless in the DC area and fully SUPPORT what the diocese is doing. But I also think women popes are OK with Jesus.

    Friday, November 13, 2009 at 4:58 pm | Permalink
  38. Halden wrote:

    That also, is something I can work with. Can you actually explain a little bit more about it? I’ve been hoping that someone actually involved in the situation might comment. What will be the probable effect if the church pulls out? Also what would be the effect on them if they did not and had to abide by this legislation?

    Friday, November 13, 2009 at 5:01 pm | Permalink
  39. Auggie Webster wrote:

    I actually serve with an organization in Prince Georges county, just over the border from DC proper, but anyone familiar with the area knows that PG needs the help more. The org also serves DC. Yes, there are a few gay homeless around (still somehow dressed fabulously) and we have served them and will continue to do so, but our org deals with very basic food, shelter, clothing needs. We never ask if anyone is gay, since that’s usually the least of their problems, aka, even our occasional trans-whatever would go straight for a place to stay that night.

    Anyway, I was talking with my Monsignor superior about this just today and he said that he knows of no RC services that are even majority funded by the city. He believed that the most which could happen in our own org is that we would refuse to accept the 5% or so funding which comes from the city/county and make up for it elsewhere. He believes that the practical consequences would be minimal if carried through, but that the Archdiocese needed a public way as possible to lobby for its desired result in the upcoming council decision. Hope that helps.

    Friday, November 13, 2009 at 5:18 pm | Permalink
  40. sdf wrote:

    There’s another example of your bad assuming. I ain’t a Catholic and haven’t argued in support of their position in this thread (heck, you might, in spite your whacky logic, be right about them), only called into question (1) your baseless (and silly absent unreasonable bias) assumption that they’re withdrawing from all good works toward the poor in DC and (2) the bias and bad assumptions that appear to underlie your uncharitable judgment of their Christian witness. As we progressed we got to add (3) your inconsistency in condemning “Constantinianism” on the one hand while condemning the DC Catholics for considering withdrawing from a Constantinian arrangement when the tension of conflicting masters threatened to become too great (in their mind at least).

    Friday, November 13, 2009 at 5:45 pm | Permalink
  41. Halden wrote:

    I never said you were Catholic, dude. Its just that you clearly have some sort of ecclesiological assumptions that forbid you from thinking critically about this situation. I wouldn’t begin to know how to figure out what those are.

    Though, if you wanted to be clear rather than misleading, perhaps you shouldn’t have so tritely spoken of “our internal dialogue” when you’re not part of the “we.”

    As to your “points”:

    1) I never stated nor implied that the Catholic church was withdrawing ALL charity from the poor;

    2) You’ve shown no evidence of any sort of damning bias, just ranted and insulted when argued with; and

    3) I never condemned them for withdrawing from a “Constantinian” arrangement, only their apparent motive for doing so.

    Friday, November 13, 2009 at 5:52 pm | Permalink
  42. Halden wrote:

    Also, its clear to me that this exchange will never end unless you’re allowed one last cheap parting shot, so by all means have at it. I think I’ve indulged you long enough.

    Friday, November 13, 2009 at 6:08 pm | Permalink
  43. I also found this incredible. It’s just a weird response. If they want to, they could excommunicate all Catholics in the legislature or something. To make (or allow, from their perspective) the poor to suffer for a reason like this is quite despicable.

    Friday, November 13, 2009 at 8:44 pm | Permalink
  44. Nathan Smith wrote:

    I think the fact that this all comes down to employment law makes a strong case for a non-institutional church. That is, the RCC would not have to worry about this issue at all if they did not employ people.

    Friday, November 13, 2009 at 8:52 pm | Permalink
  45. dan wrote:

    Fair enough.

    Personally, I work for a non-profit that is Catholic on paper, but not at all Catholic in practice (amongst the close to 200 staff members, I’ve only met a handful of Catholics). This agency has, until recent years, made a point of avoiding government funding and has, instead, relied upon corporate donors and gifts from individuals. However, despite all its proclaimed freedom from the restraints that government funding brings, the agency is just as deeply restrained and subverted by this donor base (and, I suppose, by its corporate-based board of governors). For any who might be interested in pursuing this topic further, I suggest the collection of essays published in The Revolution Will Not Be Funded: Beyond the Non-Profit Industrial Complex.

    I’m also reminded of two stories — one told by the priest who founded Covenant House and another told be a Jesuit who founded a centre for street-involved people in the Northwest. The first priest tells about a fellow who used to run peep shows that would star some of the homeless kids with whom he worked. This fellow used to bring in money earned by sexually exploiting these kids to donate to Covenant House. At first the priest refused the money (because of where it came from) but eventually he had a change of heart and began to accept this fellow’s donations.

    The Jesuit tells a similar story about how a major biker gang wanted to donate Christmas dinners and bikes (for the kids) to his agency. After a similar struggle, he also ended up accepting the donations.

    Interesting stuff… maybe the problem isn’t so much the source of the money, as the money itself.

    Sorry for the tangent!

    Friday, November 13, 2009 at 11:38 pm | Permalink
  46. Brendan Case wrote:

    I think there are some fundamental, unresolved ambiguities leftover from Halden’s original post. (I’m sorry if this has been addressed in the “skinny comments” or elsewhere, and I’ve simply missed it.) Halden’s take on the political situation is that is is “more important to the church that it be able to not give medical benefits to those in gay relationships than that it care for the poor as Jesus commanded us.” Now, it sounds as though he got this information from the AP, which reported on the 13th, “The archdiocese fears it would have to offer employee benefits to married same-sex couples.” The WaPo is more ambiguous, however: “Fearful that they could be forced, among other things, to extend employee benefits to same-sex married couples…” Just what are these other things? The Catholic sources I turned to offer a much different picture. reported, “the archdiocese said that those who refuse to promote and support same-sex “marriages” in a “host of settings where it would compromise their religious beliefs” would risk facing legal action. Such settings could include employee benefits, adoption services and the use of church halls for non-wedding events for same-sex couples.” Likewise, suggested that the laws “could mean that individuals – from wedding photographers to caterers – will face charges of unlawful discrimination if they refuse their services to same-sex couples for reasons of conscience. Religious groups and churches, including the Catholic archdiocese and its affiliates, would also have to open up their services to homosexual couples, including: adoption and foster-care services, spousal benefits for ‘married’ same-sex couples, and church halls requested for non-marriage functions.” Now, if Halden is correct, and this is just about Catholic organizations not wanting to give homosexual employees medical insurance, I think I would agree with him that the threatened response would be a dramatic overreaction. However, if this law really would allow the city government to impose non-discrimination laws across society as a whole, so that photographers and adoption agencies and caterers would be governed by them, well, that’s a different ball game. Does anyone know why the AP was so much more reticent in its reporting than the CNA (preferably excluding uncharitable psychoanalysis of either party, of course)?

    Saturday, November 14, 2009 at 8:57 am | Permalink
  47. Devin Rose wrote:


    I was all ready to reply with a big rebuttal but your friend Hill is always all over it way ahead of me. Stick with that guy, and you’ll go far.

    Sunday, November 29, 2009 at 10:07 pm | Permalink

Switch to our mobile site