Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

MARRIAGE: Overturn harmful legislation

Letter by Signo J. Uddenberg, Gig Harbor on April 6, 2012 at 11:31 am with 74 Comments »
April 6, 2012 12:05 pm

Marriage in societal traditions is acknowledged as the foundation of civilization. It has long been recognized that the stability of society depends on the stability of family life in which a man and a woman conceive and nurture new life.

The basic family unit consisting of the marriage between a man and a woman is fundamental for the educational process and development of both individuals and states. This is not a simple social convention, but rather the fundamental cell of every society. Consequently, policies which undermine this natural, fundamental family structure, threaten human dignity and the future of humanity itself.

Washington state’s present law defining marriage as “a civil contract between a male and a female” is grounded in reason and the experience of society. It recognizes the value of marriage as a bond of personal relationships, but also in terms of the unique and irreplaceable potential of a man and woman to conceive and nurture new life, thus contributing to the continuation of the human race.

Unfortunately, many of our legislators mindlessly followed the false notions of their party and enacted a statute that will no longer recognize the unique and important family structure, thereby adding to the forces already undermining family life today.

As a result, I urge registered voters to sign and support Referendum 74 and Initiative 1192, which will overturn this naive and harmful action, and defend the current legal definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

Leave a comment Comments → 74
  1. Fibonacci says:

    My God Signo, I didn’t realize that the very survival of our civilization depends on marriage between a man and a woman. When are you going to circulate the petition making divorce illegal? I mean, it is a “fundamental cell of every society”, so we need to keep those marriages intact. NO DIVORCE—I support you.

    (BY the way it is too bad written words can’t show sarcasm).

  2. Wow, this is like something from 1952. Too funny. It seems life in states that have legalized gay marriage continues to function just fine. There has been no collapse of heterosexual marriages; no churches have been forced to marry people they don’t wish to marry; the sun continues to rise in the east and set in the west; and property taxes are still due in April and October. It’s really not clear to me why so many are concerned about who others love and marry. Personally I could not care less, and I imagine I speak for the majority of those under age 60.

  3. Theefrinker says:

    Reproducing and raising a human is not dependent upon marriage, and marriage is not mandatorily subjected to the bearing and raising of children. Moreover, marriage is far from being the foundation of society, and further from the foundation of civilization.

  4. To bad the letter writer has no empirical evidence whatsoever to back his claims, just his gut feeling and his interpretation of what God thinks (not Jesus, mind you, as Jesus had no thoughts on the matter). The more people who legally commit themselves to the one they love, the better for our society to maximize the benefits of committed two-person domestic situations. Iowa legalized gay marriage – has the devil swept in to punish that ultra liberal state? I didn’t marry for the sake of producing children – 8 years later and I still don’t have any. Think God frowns on me, too?

  5. All laws from henceforth shall be by the order of his/her majesty, the Imperial Signo.

    All fundamental cells of society (family units) will report immediately to the nearest reproduction center, and any cell found not able to reproduce will be terminated with prejudice.

    /s/ Signo the Magnificent

  6. LornaDoone says:

    Sig – did you refuse business from homosexual partners as owner of Uddenberg’s Thriftway or is your bigotry just a sociological thing and can be overlooked for the sake of profits?

  7. aislander says:

    Don’t worry, Signo: the government will take over the functions of the family and other societal institutions as well–which is the real point of the attacks on those institutions…

    Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State.

  8. I wonder if being a conservative makes one a bigot or if being a bigot makes one a conservative?

  9. Fibonacci says:

    Oh very good kluwer, very well put.

  10. Aislander – rewrite “ the Fascist Right plans to take over the family unit and all other societal institutions to protect our individual freedoms and liberties.”

  11. Frankenchrist says:

    Signo thinks “Man Men” is the way things ought to be. No doubt he has a poster of Rick Santorum tacked to his wall.

  12. “the government will take over the functions of the family and other societal institutions as well–which is the real point of the attacks on those institutions…”

    Considering the big govt solutions to problems that only the right can see, that must be the fascist rights plan, they after all are the ones pushing for the Govt to get into every aspect of our lives, starting with the bedroom of course.

  13. aislander – neat little conspiracy theory there…..somehow same-sex marriage (which makes adoption of abandoned children who would otherwise be wards of the state easier for gay couples) is a nefarious step towards the state completely erasing the nuclear family as the unit that raises children.

    So…in this delusion of yours, will gay couples be the only state approved child-rearers? If so, each couple would have to adopt hundreds of children as the percentage of gays is very low. These new family units would have to have a new name – how about gaykibbutz?

    Your “slippery slope” isn’t even slanted in the direction you predict. The fear-based conservative mind is an odd thing.

  14. Flanagan says:

    Lorna Doone…Signo wasn’t the owner of Thriftway…it was Keith Uddenberg, who is no longer living. But, I say bravo Signo, to your letter. There are many who believe as you do and are eager to sign the petition.

  15. I’ve seen the petitions and will not sign them. Where the state is involved “marriage” should be removed and “civil union” should replace it. If you want to be married go to a church, if you want it to be legally recognized go to a courthouse and get a license.

  16. buddyandelliott says:

    Two questions to the letter writer.

    1. How does the basic family unit of a man and woman contribute to the education process and development of the state? That makes no sense whatsoever.

    2. Is the human race in some danger of extinction through lack of procreation? That statement is lunacy in the face of what is it now, 6 billion humans?

    And leave your religion out of it. I don’t subscribe to your dogma and many others don’t as well.

  17. “If you want to be married go to a church, if you want it to be legally recognized go to a courthouse and get a license.”

    And that is how it has always been!
    Only difference, same sex couples couldn’t get the license, now they can.
    Somehow that will bring and end to life as we know it.

  18. sandblower says:

    The letter’s content is 18th century at the latest. It is very sad to read letters like this for it tells us that we still have a long way to go until there is more than the right wing’s definition of freedom for everyone.

  19. aislander says:

    xring: By the standards of American politics, fascism is a left-wing creature. Limited government and fascism are opposites.

    As you should know by now…

  20. “By the standards of American politics, fascism is a left-wing creature.”

    You’re not going to start that again are you?
    Your lies were proven before, didn’t you learn?

  21. I don’t want idiot right wingers to marry or breed either. Guess it goes to show we can’t always get what we want.

  22. Limited government and fascism are opposites.

    And yet you still manage somehow to rationalize support of MORE rather than LESS government regulations on contracts between consenting adults…..

  23. Point of fact – Fist you go to the courthouse and get the license then you go a Church/Judge/Justice of the Peace etc to get ‘married’.

    No Islander – only the zombie right wing believes fascism is left wing by today’s standards. Those of us not brain dead know it is ultra right wing.

    Of course the z.r.w. are also the only ones who still believe the GOP stands for smaller limited government.

  24. aislander says:

    Fascism is a slippery thing, xring and experts on the subject, such as Robert Griffin of Oxford University admit that. It is impossible to define it concretely. All we really have is its history, which it shares with Marxist socialism right up to the schism between the two.

    Conservatives in the United States have no shared history with either. American liberals do. Get over it.

  25. aislander says:

    beerBoy: I have no problem with consenting adults creating whatever contracts they want (that don’t break basic laws) without the intrusion of government. As a matter of fact, I’d like to be able to sign a contract with a health insurer that covers only the things I want covered. Good luck with that, huh?

    My objection isn’t to the contract between the consenting adults involved, it is rather to the involvement of government in celebrating rather than merely enforcing that contract through the courts…

    When government celebrates that contract by calling it “marriage,” it perpetrates a lie, and worse, it involves me as a citizen whose government it also is, in that lie…

  26. Frankenchrist says:

    aislander, nice try but you are against gay marriage for one simple reason: because you are an intolerant right-wing bigot.

    There, I fixed your post for you.

  27. Conservatives in the United States have no shared history with either.

    GE was not alone among U.S. big business in having cordial, profitable arrangements with the corporations of Nazi Germany. Kodak, DuPont and Shell Oil are also known to have had business dealing with Germany. Due to a recent reparations case, the activities of General Motors and Ford are the most well known. And the cases are instructive:

    GM and Ford, through their subsidiaries, controlled 70 percent of the German automobile market when war broke out in 1939. Those companies “rapidly retooled themselves to become suppliers of war materiel to the Germany army,” writes Michael Dobbs in the Washington Post.

    “When American GIs invaded Europe in June 1944, they did so in jeeps, trucks and tanks manufactured by the Big Three motor companies in one of the largest crash militarization programs ever undertaken,” observes Dobbs. “It came as an unpleasant surprise to discover that the enemy was also driving trucks manufactured by Ford and Opel — a 100 percent GM-owned subsidiary — and flying Opel-built warplanes.”

    The major U.S. automakers (including Chrysler) established multinational operations as early as the 1920s and 1930s, locating plants in Germany, eastern Europe and Japan.
    http://www.ranknfile-ue.org/uen_nastybiz.html

  28. A number of prominent and wealthy American businessmen helped to support fascist regimes in Europe from the 1920s through the 1940s. These people helped to support Francisco Franco during the Spanish Civil War of 1936, as well as Benito Mussolini, and Adolph Hitler.

    Some of the primary and more famous Americans and companies that were involved with the fascist regimes of Europe are: William Randolph Hearst, Joseph Kennedy (JFK’s father), Charles Lindbergh, John Rockefeller, Andrew Mellon (head of Alcoa, banker, and Secretary of Treasury), DuPont, General Motors, Standard Oil (now Exxon), Ford, ITT, Allen Dulles (later head of the CIA), Prescott Bush, National City Bank, and General Electric.
    http://www.rationalrevolution.net/war/american_supporters_of_the_europ.htm

  29. At this time GM, Ford, DuPont, and Standard Oil were working with Franco and supplying the fascist powers of Europe. At this same time many Americans were protesting the goings on in Europe as well as the involvement of American companies in helping the fascist powers. A group of American volunteer soldiers known as the Abe Lincoln Brigade went to Spain during this time to fight against Franco in defense of the Spanish Republic. This group was made up primarily of leftist American groups, such as members of American socialist parties and communist parties.

    ibid.

  30. The du Ponts helped to finance the Black Legion. The Black Legion was a Nazi style group supported by the du Ponts who were supporters of the Nazi movement in Germany and fanatical followers of the Third Reich. The organization was an American anti-socialist group that used violence against union leaders and union members. They have been implicated in the murder of several members of workers groups who were working in support of workers rights and benefits. The Black Legion was reported to have over 1.5 million members in the United States and was a group that was opposed to the FDR administration and was supposedly working to overthrow the administration. The Black Legion also had ties with the Ku Klux Klan, which was also a pro-Nazi group. The American Liberty League was another such organization.

    ibid.

  31. “All we really have is its history, which it shares with Marxist socialism right up to the schism between the two.”

    Which of course it doesn’t.
    How many more times are you going to try and foist this nonsense on people?
    Do you know how foolish you look?

  32. image

    IBM knowing helped to setup Nazi census databases through the use of data sorting machines that enabled the Nazis to carry out the Holocaust in a way that they would not have otherwise been able to. Point blank, IBM increased the size and scope of the Holocaust, and did it for profit. Not only this, but IBM leased the machines, which they had developed especially for the Nazis, to the regime with the intention of taking them back, “once they were finished with them”. Thomas Watson was awarded a medal by Adolph Hitler for his role in assisting in the Nazi regime, .and Watson expressed, “the necessity of extending a sympathetic understanding to the German people, and their leader Adolph Hitler.” He also expressed “the highest esteem for Hitler, his country, and his people.”

    More on IBM and Thomas J. Watson can be found here:

    http://www.ibmandtheholocaust.com

    http://www.waragainsttheweak.com/

    Charles Lindbergh was perhaps the most vocal and public supporter of the fascists, especially the Germans. Lindbergh was not so much a financial supporter of the Nazis, as he was a public advocate for allying with Germany to fight against Communism and promote White racial superiority. Lindbergh attended the Olympics as a guest of the Nazis and in 1938 he was given the Service Cross of the German Eagle while attending a dinner party in Berlin. He founded the America First Committee in 1940 to build opposition to FDR and FDR’s support for American entry into the war in Europe.

  33. “American liberals do. Get over it.”

    You really will swallow any propaganda won’t you?
    I think I was being too polite when I said you looked ‘foolish’.

  34. Ford also made large personal contributions to Hitler’s political campaigns. Hitler spoke of Ford in his speeches and had a portrait of Ford in his office.

    In 1938 Henry Ford received the Grand Cross of the Order of the German Eagle as a birthday present from Adolph Hitler. He was given the medal in his office in Michigan by two officials from the Third Reich, as seen below:

    Ford never returned this medal, even after WWII. The head of IBM, who had also been given a medal from Hitler because he was a supporter of the Third-Reich, returned his medal after WWII, but Henry did not despite public outcry.

  35. You bring the supposed link between fascism and the Left and comparisons to Nazis and the Holocaust into these threads so often I think you should save us all time by just changing your screen name to “GodwinInfraction”. Maybe you could give homage to your current name and use “GIslander” – the uninitiated would think that the “GI” was a connection to the famous boy’s doll manufactured by Hasbro, or they might think it was something to do with your gastrointestinal problems but, those of us who have been here would be alerted – ol’ GodwinInfractionSlander is at it again.

  36. My objection isn’t to the contract between the consenting adults involved, it is rather to the involvement of government in celebrating rather than merely enforcing that contract through the courts…

    When government celebrates that contract by calling it “marriage,” it perpetrates a lie, and worse, it involves me as a citizen whose government it also is, in that lie…”

    Then WHY is the government sanctioning ANY marriage? Leave that to the church and let ALL govt recognized unions me civil. Why should a homosexual subsidize a married couple with special benefits that they don’t qualify for? AISLANDER, you are a bigot. I bet you are sitting there sucking off of a military pension or social security. We are all probably paying for your stupidity. That pisses me off.

  37. So….GIslander’s objection is over the use of a word. Hmmmm…..isn’t the regulation of the use of words usually defined as P.C.?

    Nothing quite like trying to control people’s thoughts by regulating the usage of words to invoke feelings of the Founders and Freedom!

  38. Bb, I admire your efforts and the facts, too bad the person they are aimed at will never admit to her error.
    Her brain was scrubbed long ago by the party.
    And now she only wants big Govt solutions to problems only she and the party can see, like the usage/meaning of a word.

  39. cadana1961 says:

    Doesn’t matter how you package up the words, there still lingers a passive-aggressive smell of homophobic intolerance … And that is simply not a family value!

  40. aislander says:

    No objection to people’s using the word any way they want, beerBoy, but when government changes the meaning of a word (to mean something it doesn’t mean and never has meant), we are not talking about political correctness, we are discussing social engineering and real-world implications…

  41. aislander says:

    Add to that, government has no compelling interest in same-sex “marriage” as it always has had with marriage due to the possibility and strong probability (not certainty) of offspring…

  42. nice try aislander – Clarifying and changing definition of words used in legal contracts is EXACTLY what governments do. They don’t change the meaning of words in colloquial use, but they do alter the definition of words that are utilized in legal contracts – all of the time – at least when they are actually doing their job.

  43. So Flanagan you are eager to sign a petition to increase government control over our lives. And here I thought you tidy righties were opposed to government interference in our daily lives.

    Aislander – just get over it, accept the reality that Fascism is ultra-right, and move on.

    Trying to define fascism by what it was in the beginning is like claiming the US supports slavery because we did at one time.

    Marriage (also called matrimony or wedlock) is a social union or legal contract between people that creates kinship. The definition of marriage varies according to different cultures, but is usually an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged. Such a union is often formalized via a wedding ceremony. Many cultures limit marriage to two persons of the opposite sex, but some allow forms of polygamous marriage, and some recognize same-sex marriage.

    So how has the government changed the above definition of marriage?

    beerBoy – Jimmy Doolittle returned his metals form Japan by attaching them to the bombs he dropped on Tokyo.

  44. Government changing the meaning and terms of marriage contracts! OMG. Since marriage is now and has ever been defined by the “government” in power, whether it be a tribe who has prophets that hear voices or one of democratic nations, then it is an unconvincing argument at best, and an ignorant one at worst.

    I guess aislander would have us call interracial marriage by some other name because government stepped in and changed the meaning from same-race marriage to one open to interracial marriage, too – against the crowd that argued that interracial marriage had never been sanctioned by God.

  45. To Gander (ais)Lander who wrote, “Don’t worry, Signo: the government will take over the functions of the family and other societal institutions as well–which is the real point of the attacks on those institutions…”

    “Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State.”

    The sky is falling! the sky is falling! the sky is falling!

  46. aislander says:

    Nice try, (S)q(uealer)-m…

  47. aislander says:

    How many times, tuddo, do I have to destroy the false comparison of anti-miscegenation laws to the true definition of marriage? Men and women are essentially different, but the races are essentially the same (other than trivial surface differences)…

  48. “How many times, tuddo, do I have to destroy the false comparison of anti-miscegenation laws to the true definition of marriage?”

    If you managed to do it once it would be quite a feat!

  49. rooster_02 says:

    Tax the churches and picket udderbergs thriftway

  50. aislander, you have yet to even make a dent in the totaly analogous situation I presented. You say the government doesn’t have a right to define marriage that changes what it has “always been”. I can point you to many laws that do just that.

    At one time, no state in the United States recognized interracial marriages, and the great majority had laws specifically against such. So, that was the “always been” situation in the USA. A new law comes out and changes the definition.

    People in the 17th-19th century did not believe that the races are “essentially the same.” In fact, even in the 1930’s there were huge numbers of people in the US that agreed with Hitler’s view that blacks were non-human. Many religions taught that blacks were separate and cursed by God.

    Only during the Enlightenment did people start viewing any other race as “the same”. It took a long time for the US to view Asians, especially Chinese as legally the same as other humans.

    You say you are against any law that changes the definition by government of what marriage has always been. Therefore you must be against the changes the law made to the definition of marriage interracial marriage.

    Its simple logic, something yuou can’t quite get a grip around, can you?

  51. You already know this aislander, but long-range vision is not the norm among many of those posting here (bB excluded). You’ve managed to get some folks’ undies all up in a knot with your comments, but don’t hold your breath for them to see your point.

  52. aislander says:

    Okay, tuddo: let’s go step by step. Are women fundamentally different (in a myriad of ways, right down to the cellular level) from men?

  53. “You’ve managed to get some folks’ undies all up in a knot with your comments, but don’t hold your breath for them to see your point.”

    The only ‘undies’ in a know seems to be those of the far right religious nuts that want/need the Govt to justify their hate and bigotry.
    aislander has yet to even get close to a point.

  54. Sozo – the only long-range vision on the right is ‘how far back can we take the nation?’

  55. aislander says:

    The long-range vision is: freedom is better than coercion by government.

    Opportunity is preferable to a lefty’s idea of “fairness.”

    Government is here to make it easy and safe to pursue happiness, not to steal from us.

    There’s a start…

  56. Yes, we must reserve the right to steal from us for the Corporations.

  57. Sometimes things that seem harmless take years to do their damage. I’m always stunned by how difficult this is for some to grasp. The so-called sexual revolution of the 60’s seemed harmless in the beginning, and yet look at the mess we are in today.

  58. “freedom is better than coercion by government.”

    Why then are you advocating continued Govt coercion, why not fall on the side of freedom for a change???

  59. soso, can you expand on that? I have no idea just what the evil ‘sexual revolution’ has led to.

  60. “Government is here to make it easy and safe to pursue happiness”

    So again I have to ask you why you won’t fall on the side of freedom, opportunity and happiness, instead of the continued oppression, restriction and bog govt intrusion that you now favor?

  61. anotherID2remember says:

    If you are in favor of marriage being between any consenting adults regardless of their sex then, there is no argument that you can make against polygamy between consenting adults.

    Kinda makes the “we want what they have” argument seem pointless if everyone gets the legal right to marry anyone doesn’t it.

  62. anotherID: the argument has been made in court and the Supreme Court said that laws against polygamy were OK because it was harmful to the concept of equality under our Constitution and harmful to our democratic system. There are several court cases and Supreme Court rulings that speak to this.

    Courts have used examples of polygamist nations developing into a two-tiered system, one where a minority of men were married to the majority of women and a majority of men not able to have any wife. The greater benefits of society went to the minority of men Single men, most often low status, were the ones drafted or conscripted into military service, were not able to succeed because of social constrictions did not inherit family businesses, and the nations suffered because of it, many times because of it.

    Courts also pointed out that the English common laws of inheritance would be destroyed by polygamy.

    I am just paraphrasing the arguments, not giving my opinion.

  63. Anti-polygamy laws are another example of secular law trumping religious beliefs.

  64. As the writer of the initial letter, I would like to thank those of you who made comments and entered into a dialogue that was civil and germane to the topic. I certainly don’t expect everyone to agree on this issue or any other. However, reasoned discussion, and action, on political/public matters is extremely important in a democracy, and will keep us strong.

    For clarity, I will make just a few comments in general, and on some postings specifically as they were quite erroneous:

    Family Units: These are the fundamental building blocks of all successful and lasting societies. By their very nature they consist of the marriage between one man and one woman, and most often, one or more children. Those couples (as defined above) without children are also a family and just as essential to the well-being of the society through their influence and modeling of ethical and moral behavior.

    Education: The earliest education of a child is through their parents. And numerous studies have shown, this most basic education is best taught by a married father and mother.

    Civil Unions: The law as it stands today allows civil unions between same-sex couples which are recognized by the state. I am not opposed.

    Divorce: I agree, we cannot legislate against it, but I think we would agree it is an admission of failure, and is unfortunate. Condoning same-sex marriage would not improve this situation.

    Religion: It is neither mentioned nor referred to in my letter.

    Uddenberg’s Thriftway: I was not the owner (wrong Uddenberg) and for the person who wants to picket the store, you would be better off going inside and having a brew from 7 Seas Brewery.

  65. there is no argument that you can make against polygamy between consenting adults.

    And yet – in spite of the clear 1st Amendment religious protections – we have laws against it.

  66. Family Units: These are the fundamental building blocks of all successful and lasting societies.

    Incorrect. There are several successful and lasting societies that utilized extended clan, rather than heterosexual nuclear family structure.

    numerous studies have shown, this most basic education is best taught by a married father and mother.

    Researchers have compared children of homosexual parents to children of heterosexual parents in many areas of personal and social development. There is no evidence in current research that children of gay or lesbian parents or families have any more problems than do children of comparable circumstances in heterosexual families (Patterson, 1992; Golombok, 2003). Both groups fall within normal patterns.
    http://www.education.com/reference/article/research-children-gay-lesbian-families/

    Divorce: I agree, we cannot legislate against it,[...]Condoning same-sex marriage would not improve this situation.

    Actually we could. The Catholic Church has law against divorce (however they do allow for “annulments”). But then that would mean becoming a theocratic government.

    Not sure why you believe that legalizing same-sex marriage (in contrast to civil unions) should be expected to improve heterosexual marriage. However, there might be a reduction of divorces by gays who marry into hetero unions in denial of their true nature – but that is pure speculation and probably would be so small a number as to be statistically insignificant.

    you would be better off going inside and having a brew from 7 Seas Brewery.

    In spite of the improvements with cans – beer still tastes better from glass containers. Drinking craft beer from a can is such a waste – always pour a proper pint into a proper glass.

  67. If you are connected with 7 Seas, I gotta say – I might not agree with your politics and I’m not thrilled with cans but your selection of beer styles gets a thumbs up from me: Big hops and Belgians!

  68. SignoU-If you are not opposed to the state’s recognition of civil unions between same-sex couples then what makes you fearful that anything will be different upon the use of the word marriage? What makes that a game-changer in your mind?

  69. IPA’s

  70. Signo, I actually do believe the family is an important part of our democracy and our form of government and society. However, as beerBoy points out, families with homosexuals at the head achieve the same positive results. The results for single parent families are not as positive, but we still tolerate them and do not discriminate against them.

    The facts negate every single one of your arguments. It is just a bias on your part that has no hint of evidence other than your preferences. Your personal bias should not be enforced by the power of big government to the detriment of other citizens.

    If I were reincarnated, please send me back to a loving, stable family with same-sex parents rather than a loveless one with heterosexual parents.

  71. Signo,
    Where does personal freedom fit into your little slice of utopia?
    And why do you think the Govt should be enforcing your set of values and morals over someone else’s?

  72. No sign of Signo

  73. LornaDoone says:

    “Uddenberg’s Thriftway: I was not the owner (wrong Uddenberg) and for the person who wants to picket the store”

    There was more than one Uddenberg owned Thriftway, Signo. Your name certainly came up during ad meetings.

    My question was do you accept the money that gay couples spend with your business concerns? I notice you didn’t answer.

    Now with all your alleged knowledge about homosexuality and its impact on the family unit, maybe you can explain why 98% of all pedophilia is perpetrated by “known heterosexuals” – usually a family member.

  74. LornaDoone says:

    “In 1997 he sold the chain of stores, which once stretched from Everett to Vancouver, Wash., and from Port Angeles to Kirkland, to Quality Food Centers for $65 million.”

    Didn’t work in the office on Pacific Hwy in the 1980s? Hmmm…..

*
We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0