Slog
News & ArtsThursday, May 7, 2009
Homo To Know Us...
Posted by Dan Savage on Thu, May 7, 2009 at 3:52 PM
People who know gay people are likelier to support gay rights and marriage equality. People who don't know gay people need to be introduced to gay people and gay families—which is just what these new ads from Equality California do.
It's too bad EQC didn't run these ad before the vote on Prop 8. Live and learn. Thanks for the heads up, Rex.
1
Oh, those are great.
I especially like that they've done a spot focusing on a couple with an older child as well as a couple with small children.
Too bad it had to take Prop 8 for something this good to finally get made.
I especially like that they've done a spot focusing on a couple with an older child as well as a couple with small children.
Too bad it had to take Prop 8 for something this good to finally get made.
2
my child's teacher just the other day acknowledged her lesbianism to me in an email exchange about her son, who has been sick and keeping her from the classroom. i hope that she is as comfortable with all the other parents in the class to be so forthcoming.
to care for and nurture our kids as beautifully as she has over the course of this school year while being in a long- term lesbian relationship and raising a child of their own is just such a perfect, perfect example. she's a fantastic teacher, caregiver and mother and i have no doubt that she is a loving and committed partner as well.
i hope she will reveal this aspect of her life to more parents, or that she already has and i just don't know because nobody complained. that would be terrific!!!!!
to care for and nurture our kids as beautifully as she has over the course of this school year while being in a long- term lesbian relationship and raising a child of their own is just such a perfect, perfect example. she's a fantastic teacher, caregiver and mother and i have no doubt that she is a loving and committed partner as well.
i hope she will reveal this aspect of her life to more parents, or that she already has and i just don't know because nobody complained. that would be terrific!!!!!
3
I know 30 seconds is all you get but maybe a little longer in online versions. It makes a good point though that it is so much harder to be an asshole when you have to look your victim in their eyes and see you...at least who you hope you were.
4
Well, the lesbian couple ought to be able to be married, but not the chubby Latino guys! NO overweight people (straight or gay) should be allowed to marry!! Right, Dan?
Seriously, though, why didn't the brain-dead dolts at Equality California make ads with real, live, and completely unthreatening gay people during the fucking campaign? I still haven't heard an answer to that one.
Seriously, though, why didn't the brain-dead dolts at Equality California make ads with real, live, and completely unthreatening gay people during the fucking campaign? I still haven't heard an answer to that one.
5
Michael Musto of the Village Voice said this about Miss Prejean....." she's so dumb that she thinks inuendo is an Italian suppository!"
6
So who are these targeted at now? The California supreme court? I mean the people of the state of California have already spoken. Or do gay groups only respect the decision when it goes their way.
8
It's targeted at you, Loveschild. The more people who understand that gays are no different than straights when it comes to creating a marriage and a family, the faster the tide will turn towards full marriage equality.
Did they get through to you? Do any of our completely logical arguments ever get through?
Did they get through to you? Do any of our completely logical arguments ever get through?
9
How ironic you say that, Loveschild- considering Prop 8 was created specifically because religious bigots like you didn't respect the decision to legalize gay marriage when it was allowed to happen in the first place . . . You are a horrible person.
10
She just gets off on inflaming everyone - she knows that she won't bring any of us around to her way of thinking with her idiotic ramblings.
She is a hateful, angry, bitter, ugly person and shows us that every chance she gets.
She is a hateful, angry, bitter, ugly person and shows us that every chance she gets.
11
I see "EQC" and I think "Emerald Queen Casino" not Equality California...
It would be awesome if the Emerald Queen Casino would be encouraging gay couples to get married there, actually.
It would be awesome if the Emerald Queen Casino would be encouraging gay couples to get married there, actually.
12
8 They seem like nice people, I have no problem with them. But how are California's domestic partnerships, who offer basically all of the benefits of marriage not supportive enough of lesbian and gay couples like them? If something was being denied from them I'd agree with you. Isn't it really this about the name? Taking over the language, the institution and not really about benefits? I think that's really what some are after here.
13
@pg13 -- Hmm, interesting. Being a sovereign nation, could the Puyallups allow gay marriage? I know that only "domestic partnership" would be recognized off the rez, but if everyone started getting married there, wouldn't it get the ball rolling?
14
You are incorrect, Loveschild. In California, domestic partnerships do not afford gay couples all of the rights of a marriage. There are a number of meaningful differences between CA domestic partnerships and true marriage. One description of the differences is here, though there are others, if you care to look.
But, I don't expect that to change your opinion at all. Factual accuracy won't do it. Logic won't do it. Empathy won't do it. So, there's pretty much nothing else we can say to you. I'm not sure why you continue to waste our time and yours.
But, I don't expect that to change your opinion at all. Factual accuracy won't do it. Logic won't do it. Empathy won't do it. So, there's pretty much nothing else we can say to you. I'm not sure why you continue to waste our time and yours.
15
9
the decision to 'legalize' gay marriage in the first place was made by a couple of judges throwing out a vote by the people of California to ban gay marriage. really nothing ironic about it
the decision to 'legalize' gay marriage in the first place was made by a couple of judges throwing out a vote by the people of California to ban gay marriage. really nothing ironic about it
16
13 Sorta like the Coquille down in Kim's backyard? That has gottn the ball rollin in OR for sure. So umm. . . why haven't more First Nations done the same? Instead they've been instating bans just like in the states. I would think for the same reason the states have, preservation. And they might have more reasons not to rush into something like that since one would think that the faster way of extinction for a tribe would be doing what the Coquille have done. But yeah they're sovereign nations (at least in name) and I would totally oppose the Feds imposing their will on them even if I disagree with what they do.
17
As a Californian patriot, the only consolation I'm getting for living in the shadow of Proposition 8 is watching the rest of the country learn from our downfall. I still have hopes and dreams (and the occasional prayer to Saints Thomas Becket, and Chester A. Arthur, patrons of enlightenment in the line of duty) that the California Supreme Court will overturn 8.
Frankly, the thought that a minority's rights can be dislodged by a simple majority turns my stomach, so I am doubly concerned.
Frankly, the thought that a minority's rights can be dislodged by a simple majority turns my stomach, so I am doubly concerned.
18
Gee, I wonder why they profiled the female couple with a daughter and the male couple with a son?
Queue alternative ad #1...
DAUGHTER: Whenever I am frightened by a storm, I can always crawl in bed with my two daddies and feel extra safe!
DAD 1: Isn't our daughter beautiful?
DAD 2: I think there's gonna be a storm tonight.
Queue alternative ad #2...
MOM 1: Our child is so precicious. We have worked hard to raise s/he right!
SON: Moms, do I have to read Ashley Montigue and Andrea Dworkin? I want to go outside and play war!
MOM 2: War is bad! Finish your reading and get ready for your pagan church group.
Queue alternative ad #1...
DAUGHTER: Whenever I am frightened by a storm, I can always crawl in bed with my two daddies and feel extra safe!
DAD 1: Isn't our daughter beautiful?
DAD 2: I think there's gonna be a storm tonight.
Queue alternative ad #2...
MOM 1: Our child is so precicious. We have worked hard to raise s/he right!
SON: Moms, do I have to read Ashley Montigue and Andrea Dworkin? I want to go outside and play war!
MOM 2: War is bad! Finish your reading and get ready for your pagan church group.
19
@12: Will you be OK trading your marriage (if there is or is going to be one) for a domestic partnership or a civil union?
To everyone else: Is LC a dude or a chic?
To everyone else: Is LC a dude or a chic?
20
15:
Democratic process is not a perfect process. Ballot initiatives could result in laws that contradict the constitution. The supreme court does have the duty to struck down these laws (like prop 22 in CA 2000).
Besides, the will of the people could very well change over time, no?!
Democratic process is not a perfect process. Ballot initiatives could result in laws that contradict the constitution. The supreme court does have the duty to struck down these laws (like prop 22 in CA 2000).
Besides, the will of the people could very well change over time, no?!
22
Mr. Poe should be the example of a happily adjusted gay man. Except that he's bitter. And nobody loves him. And he has a small dick. And a really, really ugly face. But other than that he is a perfect poster girl.
26
So I guess if Loveschild was legally allowed to be domestically partnered or civilly unioned—but if "married" was always out of her reach—that'd be just fine. It's just a word.
27
Loveschild, you're absolutely right. I can't see any way that a "separate but equal" system could fail, or be exploited to disenfranchise anyone.
Do the gays in your idealized California get their own separate water fountains as well?
Do the gays in your idealized California get their own separate water fountains as well?
28
Loveschild is focusing on the gays because she doesn't want to think about the disaster that is family life in her demographic, where over 80% of family fail. In her mind, these adds are bad because the remind her that gay people do family better.
29
14 I read it and I forced myself to put aside how arrogant, condescending and outright insulting you and others here are come when it comes to people on the other side of this issue. And I believe that yes there should be no differences on these: CalPERS it should be afforded for homosexual couples, same as with the right to confidentiality in licenses and public records, the requirement of sharing a residence.
I do however take issue with the age limitation, I don't think it's appropriate even for heterosexuals. And I just don't feel that the Putative Spouse Doctrine should be something further encouraged. It just seems almost too close or could be used down the road for somethin like to fully implement plural marriages. So putting those two aside for a moment if all the others (like CalPers) were granted to a lesbian couple without the word marriage, would you still think that someone like me who would actually support that (willing to give my time) but would also support not using the word marriage is the horrible things you've accused me of being here? I just don't think that you really care about the real welfare of such couples and are more interested in ideological change, but I could be reading you wrong on this.
I do however take issue with the age limitation, I don't think it's appropriate even for heterosexuals. And I just don't feel that the Putative Spouse Doctrine should be something further encouraged. It just seems almost too close or could be used down the road for somethin like to fully implement plural marriages. So putting those two aside for a moment if all the others (like CalPers) were granted to a lesbian couple without the word marriage, would you still think that someone like me who would actually support that (willing to give my time) but would also support not using the word marriage is the horrible things you've accused me of being here? I just don't think that you really care about the real welfare of such couples and are more interested in ideological change, but I could be reading you wrong on this.
30
@6 How many times have people voted to keep the right to choose? That hasn't stopped the right from forcing their agenda.
31
29, But if gay people can't marry, will that give you time to address the ruins that is family life in your demographic? Will the over 80% family failure rate magically turn around? Do you keep repeating, "Must stop gay marriage!" over and over in your head to drown out the the screams of the children in your demographic? I don't suppose you could stop worrying about what the gays are doing long enough to actually do something of value in your own community?
32
Loveschild: Let's say that gay people could become parents - adopting, natural childbirth, whatever - but they couldn't CALL themselves parents. They would feel like less than parents. They'd be doing all the work of parenting - the late-night trips to the Dr.'s, helping their kids out with homework, PTA meetings - but for whatever ridiculous reason, they couldn't use the word "parent". They would feel like non-parents. Because they weren't able to be called parents.
What's in a name?
If civil unions/domestic partnerships has *each & every single* legal right that full-on marriage provided, that still wouldn't be the answer. Why? Because even if it's "only language", language is powerful.
I know you probably didn't watch this clip when Dan posted it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u95a3Kp8l…
Despite all the great, logical reasons for gay marriage - partners being able to care for each other when ill, or inherit when dying, or share all the tax benefits or thousands of other rights that marriage conveys - there is no reason more powerful, more compelling than what this young man says at the during his address to his state legislature:
"..they know I don't have the same rights that they do..When I came out, I knew I wouldn't be considered equal, & I didn't even consider myself equal. How could I, when the best I can do in most states is get a civil union, how am I supposed to feel accepted? How am I supposed to overcome the ripping, nagging feeling, that I am inferior?...I just want to be equal."
An eloquent young man like this, inferior? One loved by his family & friends? He shouldn't be able to marry someone he loves? He seems like exactly the sorta fellow who *should* marry; solid family, bright, handsome, educated. He would build a good relationship, I bet.
If you call it something different it doesn't wield the same symbolic power. If it's called something different, people will treat it different - as not as permanent, not as official, not as serious, somehow.
It continues to baffle me, Loveschild, how you pick here to tout your views. This is an issue w/ a generational divide, where generally, people 50-ish & up are against gay marriage, & folks under 50 being for it. Surely there's somewhere else online where your views would be more welcome. You must simply enjoy the argument.
More...
What's in a name?
If civil unions/domestic partnerships has *each & every single* legal right that full-on marriage provided, that still wouldn't be the answer. Why? Because even if it's "only language", language is powerful.
I know you probably didn't watch this clip when Dan posted it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u95a3Kp8l…
Despite all the great, logical reasons for gay marriage - partners being able to care for each other when ill, or inherit when dying, or share all the tax benefits or thousands of other rights that marriage conveys - there is no reason more powerful, more compelling than what this young man says at the during his address to his state legislature:
"..they know I don't have the same rights that they do..When I came out, I knew I wouldn't be considered equal, & I didn't even consider myself equal. How could I, when the best I can do in most states is get a civil union, how am I supposed to feel accepted? How am I supposed to overcome the ripping, nagging feeling, that I am inferior?...I just want to be equal."
An eloquent young man like this, inferior? One loved by his family & friends? He shouldn't be able to marry someone he loves? He seems like exactly the sorta fellow who *should* marry; solid family, bright, handsome, educated. He would build a good relationship, I bet.
If you call it something different it doesn't wield the same symbolic power. If it's called something different, people will treat it different - as not as permanent, not as official, not as serious, somehow.
It continues to baffle me, Loveschild, how you pick here to tout your views. This is an issue w/ a generational divide, where generally, people 50-ish & up are against gay marriage, & folks under 50 being for it. Surely there's somewhere else online where your views would be more welcome. You must simply enjoy the argument.
33
Loveschild @ 29,
You have been sowing seeds of disrespect, arrogance, condensecnsion, violence, false accusations, and out right insults. Yet, you feel your entitled to be treated better than you treat others? Sorry, stop the faux-martyr, you made your bed and now you have to lie in it. We're aren't fools, we have been reading your posts for months.
I'm still holding out hope that Slog just brings out the worst in you, that you're a lot nicer person than in your comments.
You have been sowing seeds of disrespect, arrogance, condensecnsion, violence, false accusations, and out right insults. Yet, you feel your entitled to be treated better than you treat others? Sorry, stop the faux-martyr, you made your bed and now you have to lie in it. We're aren't fools, we have been reading your posts for months.
I'm still holding out hope that Slog just brings out the worst in you, that you're a lot nicer person than in your comments.
34
32 No, I just tried to understand why if all the benefits are given, why the need for appropriating the cultural and social institution itself. When rights are not being denied then the insistence on wanting what the other has becomes greed not justice. I saw the video, and no I don't consider him "inferior", he's a beautiful creation of the Lord as all of us are as far as I'm concerned, he shouldn't see himself that way and I'm guessing that him feeling that way has more with what some adults have indoctrinated on him to say (for their personal agenda) then what he truly feels given his young age. I don't want anyone to be bullied or harmed (not even the racists here), but when you get to the point of having everything the law grants but with a different name when there is a real difference then the insistence on a name is not just. I don't know about you but I'm in my twenties and I know many round my age who feel like me they just don't express it publicly for fear of persecution like they've done to Miss Cali and so many others. I do frequent other places and volunteer my time in efforts concerned with this topic, I care about it. I come here cause I want to better understand and know if I'm doing th right thing. So far based on Mr Savage's posts and the comments here I feel I have. But I'm not the close minded person some here think, so I visit this site even knowing of the hatred abundant here.
But Eva, am I'm mistaken to believe that to you the benefits would hold more importance than a mere name? tell you I'm gonna ponder more on your well expressed points.
But Eva, am I'm mistaken to believe that to you the benefits would hold more importance than a mere name? tell you I'm gonna ponder more on your well expressed points.
35
34, Let me get this straight. Posting facts and statistics is racist, (sorry that you can't handle the numbers, but that's your burden to bear, or in your case, bury your head in the anti-gay sand.) but you making up stuff, and outright lying because you are a closed minded bigot is okay? It's indoctrination for gay people to teach their children their beliefs, but what is it when you teach your children to hate gay people?
37
Lovechild, I think for 99% of the people (straight or gay) who are for gay marriage, the rights are more important than the name. But, that doesn't mean that the name is not important either, at least for some. Some pro-gay marriage people care about the name as well, others do not.
Let's look at a hypothetical example... Let's say that there were two types of unions for straight couples -- one for those who planned to have children and one for those who do not. Let's call them "family marriage" and "partner union" (maybe, if you have no kids, you start out as a "partner union", and once you have kids you apply for a "family marriage" license). Same rights, benefits, etc (although the "partner union" rights/benefits obviously would exclude anything to do with kids).
Would you care if your union had to be called something different because you chose to not have children? That somehow, your love was classified differently from other couples because of a lack of children? I know I would think it was pointless and a little mean-spirited. That it would subtly send the message that my husband and I are not equal to couples who have children. At the end of the day, it wouldn't affect us in terms of our rights, but I know that it would bother me.
Let's look at a hypothetical example... Let's say that there were two types of unions for straight couples -- one for those who planned to have children and one for those who do not. Let's call them "family marriage" and "partner union" (maybe, if you have no kids, you start out as a "partner union", and once you have kids you apply for a "family marriage" license). Same rights, benefits, etc (although the "partner union" rights/benefits obviously would exclude anything to do with kids).
Would you care if your union had to be called something different because you chose to not have children? That somehow, your love was classified differently from other couples because of a lack of children? I know I would think it was pointless and a little mean-spirited. That it would subtly send the message that my husband and I are not equal to couples who have children. At the end of the day, it wouldn't affect us in terms of our rights, but I know that it would bother me.
39
Julie, let me try and make some sense out of both yours and Eva's points. Since we can at least agree on the rights (at least with you) part. I want to be able to meet you further. I'm still not clear on why is the name so important, is it just because it pisses gays and lesbians to not have the name. I'd like to have a clearer understanding of why it's such a holy grail for some. Maybe I just need to review your comment a few times more.
I just don't get that part.
But thanks for at least being cordial at least in this thread. I'll do the same. I promise if I don't get I'll take the advice you gave me on another post. I know I'm not liked here at all and if I ever went to somethin like the Slog happy hour (that's what they call it?) I probably would end up in the hospital LOL. Insults have gottn to me though here no matter if I don't comment on it, so no use for more abuse.
Hi Chitown Kev, you don't have to be cordial to me, I know. Thanks anyways, and take care sugar.
I just don't get that part.
But thanks for at least being cordial at least in this thread. I'll do the same. I promise if I don't get I'll take the advice you gave me on another post. I know I'm not liked here at all and if I ever went to somethin like the Slog happy hour (that's what they call it?) I probably would end up in the hospital LOL. Insults have gottn to me though here no matter if I don't comment on it, so no use for more abuse.
Hi Chitown Kev, you don't have to be cordial to me, I know. Thanks anyways, and take care sugar.
40
Loveschild,
I would never stand for someone physically attacking you, and I'm pretty sure despite all the disagreements most people on Slog wouldn't stand for it either.
I would never stand for someone physically attacking you, and I'm pretty sure despite all the disagreements most people on Slog wouldn't stand for it either.
42
Loveschild - I think the issue with how you're treated here is less about your actual beliefs and more about the fact that people cannot tell if you are a "real" person or just someone pretending to have the views that you do in order to try to annoy the commenters here.
There are plenty of comments that fall into the second category, and other commenters don't feel the need to be respectful of a "pretend" person (otherwise known as a troll). I, for one, went back and forth on whether I thought you were a "pretend" person... oddly enough, I feel better now that I am 99% sure that you are not (and, knowing that, I'll try to be more cordial as well).
I'm glad you'll think about Eva's comment (which I thought was a good one) and mine. Honestly, before I wrote that, I didn't know if I would care about the word "marriage" if I were gay. I had to try to invent a situation that would be comparable for me (the children vs. no children marriage), and then put myself in that place. Once I did that, I figured out that having a different name would, in fact, bother me if I were in that situation.
But, I've also heard gay folks say that the government can call it whatever they like, as long as they can get the full rights of marriage. So, I think whether the word "marriage" matters is a personal issue for people...
There are plenty of comments that fall into the second category, and other commenters don't feel the need to be respectful of a "pretend" person (otherwise known as a troll). I, for one, went back and forth on whether I thought you were a "pretend" person... oddly enough, I feel better now that I am 99% sure that you are not (and, knowing that, I'll try to be more cordial as well).
I'm glad you'll think about Eva's comment (which I thought was a good one) and mine. Honestly, before I wrote that, I didn't know if I would care about the word "marriage" if I were gay. I had to try to invent a situation that would be comparable for me (the children vs. no children marriage), and then put myself in that place. Once I did that, I figured out that having a different name would, in fact, bother me if I were in that situation.
But, I've also heard gay folks say that the government can call it whatever they like, as long as they can get the full rights of marriage. So, I think whether the word "marriage" matters is a personal issue for people...
43
Terminology is critical. It's a lot easier to sign off on "the final solution" than it is "the execution of all the Jews in Germany."
So long as there is a differentiation between civil unions and marriage, laws can be enacted that affect one but not the other, and it's not as blatantly clear that it's discrimination. We learned this before: separate but equal does not work.
So long as there is a differentiation between civil unions and marriage, laws can be enacted that affect one but not the other, and it's not as blatantly clear that it's discrimination. We learned this before: separate but equal does not work.
44
"On this point, I wanted to tell you guys about a discussion I had with a friend a couple of days ago about ERW....
So, I met up with a friend I used to work with who was laid off by ERW [recently]. He was actually XXXXX's direct supervisor until that point, a Field Organizer. We talked for several hours and he just totally went off on ERW top-down organizing style.
Part of his job was to try and organize things with smaller groups around the state. He told me that the problem is that ERW continually fucks people over because they're only really concerned with where the money is coming from, though they put up a front that they want to help the community. As an effect, he said that he'd have people from these different community groups calling him all the time cussing him out because ERW would last minute decide that plans with a certain group weren't profitable, and would just get the order to ditch out on them. He said that it felt like 80% of the groups they would work with would be so angry at them, because they were really only worried about the most profitable 20%: the big donaters.
He also said that he felt bad for the people that worked there because they're massively overworked and underpaid, working on average 60 hours a week, and more during big events. The bosses don't listen to the suggestions of any of the volunteers, but give orders to them based upon the wants of those with the dollars.
So basically I'm saying that our assessment of ERW as a top-down, conservative organization is pretty accurate, straight from the horse's mouth itself. Should we still work with them, yes. But should we be prepared for them to fuck us over if we can't bring them money? Yes. Let's just be as careful with them as possible. This is why I personally prefer a grassroots approach in which all of our opinions are valid and help shape the outward focus of the groups' activities. We're not tied down to donations, and they are. This is also why they're not prepared to "rock the boat", and why we have a very important role to play in building this movement."
More...
So, I met up with a friend I used to work with who was laid off by ERW [recently]. He was actually XXXXX's direct supervisor until that point, a Field Organizer. We talked for several hours and he just totally went off on ERW top-down organizing style.
Part of his job was to try and organize things with smaller groups around the state. He told me that the problem is that ERW continually fucks people over because they're only really concerned with where the money is coming from, though they put up a front that they want to help the community. As an effect, he said that he'd have people from these different community groups calling him all the time cussing him out because ERW would last minute decide that plans with a certain group weren't profitable, and would just get the order to ditch out on them. He said that it felt like 80% of the groups they would work with would be so angry at them, because they were really only worried about the most profitable 20%: the big donaters.
He also said that he felt bad for the people that worked there because they're massively overworked and underpaid, working on average 60 hours a week, and more during big events. The bosses don't listen to the suggestions of any of the volunteers, but give orders to them based upon the wants of those with the dollars.
So basically I'm saying that our assessment of ERW as a top-down, conservative organization is pretty accurate, straight from the horse's mouth itself. Should we still work with them, yes. But should we be prepared for them to fuck us over if we can't bring them money? Yes. Let's just be as careful with them as possible. This is why I personally prefer a grassroots approach in which all of our opinions are valid and help shape the outward focus of the groups' activities. We're not tied down to donations, and they are. This is also why they're not prepared to "rock the boat", and why we have a very important role to play in building this movement."
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
SL Letter of the Day: Putting It In by Dan Savage
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
Meet the UW "Swagga Suit" by David Schmader
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (44) RSS