Huckabee: Prop. 8 Did Not ‘Prohibit’ Same-Sex Marriage
Huckabee: Prop. 8 Did Not ‘Prohibit’ Same-Sex Marriage
Conservative talker Bill Bennett interviewed Mike Huckabee on his radio show this morning. In the course of their interview, Huckabee falsely claimed that in approving Prop. 8, California did not “ban” or “prohibit” marriage equality, but rather simply affirmed the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman:
HUCKABEE: The very people who voted for Barack Obama in California…also voted to sustain traditional marriage. I refuse to use the term, “ban same-sex marriage.” That’s not what those efforts did. They affirmed what is. They did not prohibit something. They simply affirmed that which already has and forever has existed.
Listen here:
Huckabee, who seems to see himself as a bit of an expert on LGBT rights, ought to do a little research before issuing his next bigoted proclamation. In approving Prop. 8, California — by definition — “banned same-sex marriage.” Prior to November 4, same-sex couples in California could marry. Afterward, they were banned from doing so.
As the ballot read, Prop. 8 “eliminates the right of same-sex couples to marry”:
In addition, as Nate Silver recently documented, Huckabee’s claim that “the very people that voted for Barack Obama” also voted to ban same-sex marriage is false.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
64 Responses to “Huckabee: Prop. 8 Did Not ‘Prohibit’ Same-Sex Marriage”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Um...Prop 8 "eliminates the right of same-sex couples to marry."
Chucklebee, go to your closet.
November 19th, 2008 at 5:05 pmThis lonly nation turns its eyes away from you!!! Stop this BS you are incorporating into the airwaves. No one speaks with facts anymore...plain and simple.
November 19th, 2008 at 5:09 pmThe huck needs to go away.... he is old news.
November 19th, 2008 at 5:11 pmSure Chuckleberry, just like being "Pro-Life" isn't really "Anti-Choice".
November 19th, 2008 at 5:12 pmThey did not prohibit something. They simply affirmed something that which has and forever has existed.
______
Wow. So what Mike Huckabee is saying is that Californians are such complete morons that they had to actually vote the existence of marriage into their state constitution. Just in case they forgot or something.
Must be all the smog...
November 19th, 2008 at 5:20 pmSo Huckabee says that gays can still get married? That makes perfect sense. Republicans have lost they gizodammed minds.
I say if we're going to write "traditional definitions" of marriage into law, then we must also ban divorce. Marriage is traditionally defined as the PERMANENT union of one man and one woman. People who want to ditch their first spouse and hook up with someone else are nothing more than adulterers, and they shouldn't expect society to legally condone their deviant lifestyle.
November 19th, 2008 at 5:22 pmSo Huccabee is saying Prop 8 didnt prohibit anything? What is it with Republicans that seem to think words mean whatever they WANT them to mean. As if words dont have ACTUAL definitions that dont change for the convienience of their arguments.
November 19th, 2008 at 5:22 pmShut the everlovin' flark UP, you god-smacked BOOB!!
Geesh. That basswhole really pishes me off.
November 19th, 2008 at 5:24 pmElBruce Says:
I say if we’re going to write “traditional definitions” of marriage into law, then we must also ban divorce. Marriage is traditionally defined as the PERMANENT union of one man and one woman.
November 19th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
______
Why stop there? If you're going to get traditional, let's do away with all this "marriage for love" bullshit.
We need to go back to what traditional marriage was really about - a mutually-beneficial familial arrangement between feudal powers consolidating money and land claims.
November 19th, 2008 at 5:25 pmWhat do you expect from someone who think the earth is only 6000 years old.
November 19th, 2008 at 5:28 pmHuck needs to STFU.
November 19th, 2008 at 5:28 pmI think it has something to do with reality's liberal bias. I mean, when actual meanings of words add up to something you don't want to admit, what other choice do you have, but to decide that words mean something different than what the rest of the English-speaking world understands them to mean?
November 19th, 2008 at 5:28 pmi agree mike. i also agree that the earth is 6,000 years old, i also believe in a talking snake in a magical garden and that the moon is made of cheese...
November 19th, 2008 at 5:29 pmBY the way, I think TP has the title wrong for MIke Huckabee. I think Daryll said it's "President-elect Huckabee".
At least that's what Jesus told him.
November 19th, 2008 at 5:29 pmI hope Huckabee is happy with his stint at Fox News (his own program apparently), and saves the money he makes there. His political career is certainly over. I don't even think he's really a bad person, but he's certainly something of an idiot.
November 19th, 2008 at 5:29 pmHey, how about this as a Huckabee addendum:
I say END DIVORCE! And then END MISCEGENATION!! And then heck let's bring back LYNCHING because not allowing it interferes with my gosh darn RIGHTS to protect my family!
Gosh, forget history!! (Just because same sex couples have gotten married in the past in various cultures--well, who needs facts? They always were pesky things: End Facts too!)
I hope looking forward doesn't translate into a failure to seek justice against Bush, Cheney, Gonzalez, Rumsfeld and the rest of the liars, thieves and murderers....
November 19th, 2008 at 5:32 pmWell, after all, Phuckabee believes in a Magical Invisible Faerie in the Sky (MIFS), so I guess everyone should just take his word on these things....
....just ask RupturedRectum about his MIFS in his head, "Huckabee is going to our next president."
....that one was just classic.
November 19th, 2008 at 5:35 pmGive the president-elect a chance to take office. Geez. Hear him out!
November 19th, 2008 at 5:38 pmMike Huckabee is a provincial idiot. Please, sir, go back to cooking squirrels in your popcorn popper!
Palin/Huckabee 2012!
November 19th, 2008 at 5:41 pmProp Hate proclaims an impossibility in stating: "Eliminates Right of...". The state may be can attempt to prohibit the exercise of a right, but the state can not "eliminate" a right. The right still exists, and is ready to be exercised as soon as the state lifts the prohibition.
As we've all so blithely exclaimed over and over, apparently some without thinking about what it means, it is an American value that the rights of Life, Liberty, and pursuit of happiness have been endowed to everyone by our creator and are inalienable meaning a person can not be separated from their rights. Prop Hate is therefore contrary to the founding principle of the United States in its proclamation to eliminate a right.
November 19th, 2008 at 5:45 pm.
So Huckabee wants another hate amendment in California to be legal proof? How soon until Huck and his cohorts start spreading their hateful words around the country?
http://www.sunstateactivist.org/ssablog/
November 19th, 2008 at 5:46 pmRed Pill Says:
Mike Huckabee is a provincial idiot. Please, sir, go back to cooking squirrels in your popcorn popper!
Palin/Huckabee 2012!
He doesn't have to do that anymore, he found Faux News! Capitalism rocks - now he can eat at McDonald's every day!
November 19th, 2008 at 5:47 pmPerhaps the morbidly obese should be prevented from marrying. Have you seen his children?
November 19th, 2008 at 5:52 pmWhy do Huckabee and his ilk put so much energy into trying to destroy the lives of those that love each other yet support an illegal invasion that kills people? (And no, this has nothing to do with the troops but about the criminals that sent them into harms way.)
November 19th, 2008 at 5:54 pmI think the elimination of divorce is the most pertinent rollback to make, since most of these "social conservatives" are Protestants (i.e. adulterous supporters of Henry VII's attempt to redefine marriage) and many of them are on their second, third, etc. marriage already. 'Til death do us part, beyotches.
Look, I'd hate to have to speak to my ex-wife ever again, but if it demonstrates to them what the shoe on the other foot feels like it, I'd be willing to take that bullet for a while.
November 19th, 2008 at 5:55 pmThou shall not lie!
November 19th, 2008 at 5:59 pmHuckabee Schmuckabee
November 19th, 2008 at 6:02 pmthe man's name is huck.
huck huckabee.
and he's a jesus man.
*
November 19th, 2008 at 6:07 pmwhy's anyone even talking to this assclown these days?
November 19th, 2008 at 6:17 pmthe next time i want to hear or see this bozo is when he's part of the romney/huckleberry grudge match/smackdown featuring a cage and boxcutters
"They simply affirmed something that which has and forever has existed."
November 19th, 2008 at 6:21 pmMarriage forever has existed? Repubs really have no concept whatsoever of history or timelines.
Mike Huckabee is a fake... I love how the conservatives are trying to spin prop 8's success on the fact that Obama supporters...yeah, those guys ;) voted in favor of banning gay marriage. Why the hell didn't Religulous get nominated... That movie proves this so perfectly... Religion != Politics
November 19th, 2008 at 6:32 pmIve been wonderin does faux snooze broadcast from the planet dumbass you know the one the 6,000 yr old flat planet the one the sun revolves around and ppl go around ridein on dinosaures hey hucksteer ur a putz
November 19th, 2008 at 6:44 pmI didn't know the word "prohibit" was redefined as "maybe allow".
Is that one of God's unwritten rules that is decoded with a magic decoder ring in the bible if you play "A Christmas Story" backwards?
Huckabee's contradictions leave scorch marks under his feet.
November 19th, 2008 at 6:48 pmHuckabee still refers to the "gay lifestyle." He is an unabashed bigot who seeks to remake the US into a theocracy.
http://www.tips-q.com/content/essential-activism
November 19th, 2008 at 7:36 pmdavidhart-
November 19th, 2008 at 8:24 pmthat would be "make into" a theocracy, not "remake"...
I'm no fan of Huckabee, but Prop. 8 in California could not have passed if it hadn't been for Obama supporters. Obama won the state 61% to 37%, while Prop. 8 won 52% to 48%. If only McCain supporters voted for it (37%), then it would have lost handily.
November 19th, 2008 at 8:30 pmThis is true, but don' forget that the Evangelical, Mormon, and Catholic Churches pulled together $60M to advertise for a law that restricts a group from having access to marriage privileges. $60M to take away a groups rights!!! How many people in this country are living in poverty? This was among other things, fiscally unwise for the church to do. It shouldn't have even been on the ballot. There's larger issues out there.
November 19th, 2008 at 8:43 pmSo Huckster, all Gay couples have to do is declare one them as "The Woman" in the marriage and its a go?
I must assume this compromise would really help you and your ilk in avoiding the dreaded "Talking to the property" that seems to terrify you godbags tremendously.
November 19th, 2008 at 8:51 pmFacts and Republicans don't go together.
November 19th, 2008 at 9:06 pmPut a spin on it that is divorced from the facts.
If all else fails, move the goalposts.
Rob Says:
theman Says:
I’m no fan of Huckabee, but Prop. 8 in California could not have passed if it hadn’t been for Obama supporters. Obama won the state 61% to 37%, while Prop. 8 won 52% to 48%. If only McCain supporters voted for it (37%), then it would have lost handily.
This is true, but don’ forget that the Evangelical, Mormon, and Catholic Churches pulled together $60M to advertise for a law that restricts a group from having access to marriage privileges. $60M to take away a groups rights!!! How many people in this country are living in poverty? This was among other things, fiscally unwise for the church to do. It shouldn’t have even been on the ballot. There’s larger issues out there.
The Yes on Prop 8 people put the fear of the "gay lifestyle" being taught in schools and used Gavin Newsom's own words against him big-time in TV ads that played for well over two months in the lead-up to election day. These people used the tactic of fear well (sickens me to say that), as they not only reached into there own Republican and religious communities but got enough of the borderline crowd to commit to them.
Then again, some say the No on Prop 8 people didn't do enough to combat the Yes people...inevitably leading to this questionable disproportionate win for the bigots.
November 19th, 2008 at 9:59 pmHuckabee has been all over the media lately. He's campaigning for 2012 already.
November 19th, 2008 at 10:00 pmiam Says:
davidhart-
that would be “make into” a theocracy, not “remake”…
This is America...theocracies are for the Ah-Rabs and developing nations!
Then again, Bush's economics do fit a banana republic...but would only make him fit to stock shelves at the Banana Republic in his post-Presidential life. And the Evangelicals don't fart without getting an imaginary blessing from God after praying, so we have 1/3 of the population that does encourage it without encouraging it.
So I'd say we have a faith-based initiative toward a theocracy.
November 19th, 2008 at 10:08 pm5th Estate Says:
Huckabee has been all over the media lately. He’s campaigning for 2012 already.
So does that mean the GOP debates will start in September 2009? Because Faux News will need whatever it can get to stay afloat.
November 19th, 2008 at 10:13 pmAbsolutely... fear is their only method. How else could you amass millions of people to believe the stuff they believe in. When will people wake up and realize this. What's absolutely appalling is that they are now trying to pass the blame off to the black community in a divisive attempt to separate themselves from the issue and pit gays against blacks. How Christian-like.
November 19th, 2008 at 10:14 pmI'd say there are many more white, black, hispanic and asian homophobes in California than who care to admit. I'd blame the fear-mongering on plain old uneducated, stereotypical stances that a lot of suburban/rural communities just are sheltered or don't tolerate gay and lesbian residences and/or beliefs in their communities.
I know if I go to downtown San Diego, the gay community thrives there and in a lot of the interconnected areas. But if you come just 25 minutes north to the inland, you can't throw a stone without it hitting a church.
November 20th, 2008 at 12:23 amHuckabee is completely correct. Prop 8 didn't ban anything, it simply reaffirmed what has been for thousands of years - marriage is between a man and a woman only. It is the Supreme Court in May that overturned the will of the people and the tradition of every society for thousands of years. Prop 8 simply re-instated the rights of the people that the judges wrongfully took away for 4 very short months.
November 20th, 2008 at 12:52 pm#46 - SLeeD Says:
------------------------------------------------------------
"Prop 8 didn’t ban anything, it simply reaffirmed what has been for thousands of years - marriage is between a man and a woman only."
November 20th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
Just as the Dred Scott re-affirmed that slavery was right, so does Prop 8 re-affirm that some people are unwilling to extend equal rights to every American.
Give it time. In the 90's, there was only about 40% support for same-sex marriage rights. Now, there is about 50% support for same-sex marriage rights. In about a decade the rest of America will wake up to the reality: same-sex marriage in no way, shape or form threatens opposite-sex marriage.
November 20th, 2008 at 1:36 pmMarriage isn't a right. Where in our Constitution or our Bill of Rights does it list it as a right? Marriage is solely biological and has been since the dawn of time, between a man and a woman so they can have children and raise them with both a mother and a father.
November 20th, 2008 at 4:29 pmSLeeD Says:
---------------------------------------------------------
"Marriage isn’t a right. Where in our Constitution or our Bill of Rights does it list it as a right? Marriage is solely biological and has been since the dawn of time, between a man and a woman so they can have children and raise them with both a mother and a father."
November 20th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
What about the right to pursue happiness? Seems when you deny "some" couples the right to marry, you take away a portion of their pursuit of happiness.
If, as you claim, marriage is solely "between a man and a woman so they can have children", why isn't there a fertility test to ensure said man & woman can actually HAVE a child? No such clause exists, therefore, marriage is NOT solely about having children.
Furthermore, why are older couples who are well past their child-bearing years allowed to marry if your claim is to hold any veracity?
So, I just blew two of your straw-man arguments completely out of the water. Want to try to support your prejudices some other way?
November 21st, 2008 at 6:07 amWell 48, let's then void the marriages of couples who cannot procreate. After all, you said marriage isn't a right...
The judges did not take away any rights from the people who are against gay marriage. They affirmed the principle of separation of church and state when they said no church would be forced to perform a gay marriage counter to their beliefs. I would say the "pursuit of happiness" would also include the opportunity to be with your life partner.
November 21st, 2008 at 6:09 am"And only one for birthday presents, you know. There's glory for you!"
December 2nd, 2008 at 5:24 am"I don't know what you mean by 'glory,' " Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't -- 'til I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!' "
"But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument,' " Alice objected.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master -- that's all."
-- Through the Looking Glass, Lewis Carroll
Okay, then let the government -- JPs -- perform "civil union" sanctioning ceremonies for anyone who wishes, regardless of gender, and let the churces, synagogues, mosques, temples, etc. perform "marriage ceremonies", according to their various beliefs, if the couple wishes. Or not, if they don't wish. Same-sex, or hetero, as that particular church and couple believe. Separation of church and state. Property rights, inheritance rights, visitation rights, insurance rights, etc. all are protected, the whole argument about terminology is put to rest. You can have a civil union, or a marriage. Or both! (You might have to change "Marriage license" to "License to Wed", but ... details, details). I know the die-hard homophobes would never buy it, but I think a lot of more reasonable people might give it a think-over.
I personally feel more societally threatened by the gang violence here in the city where I live (which I know in my gut is a result of, among other things, the failure of the traditional heterosexual family system in so many ways) than I ever have by the thought of a couple of guys or gals living together "in sin."
Near here is Northampton, Mass., a mecca for homosexuals of all types. Many same-sex couples. Many solid citizens of those orientations of both sexes. The mayor. Many local politicians; local business owners who employ many people and pay lots of taxes, generate lots of local "GDP"; lots of creative types and others who help make the place a tourist mecca which, again, causes the economy to boom even these days. Very little crime, even though it's very near a large urban center right down river and (I'm pointing this part out to yank a few ultraconservative chains, not because I'd expect any connection) the place is highly ethnically diverse and relatively secular compared to, say, Palin's "pro-America" areas. Stable family type town, including many same-sex-parent families.
The kids in those families -- wait for it -- are no more or less likely to be homosexual than those from heterosexual parents, because it isn't taught or chosen. And they are less likely to have the problems that I see kids -here- having with gangs and drugs because the families are more stable. No incest, physical abuse, absentee fathers leaving after accidental pregnancies. By and large, the vast majority of these folks are stable, solid citizens who are committed to each other, their families, and their community. And their churches, too. And it shows in the quality of the children they raise.
Go figger.
Anybody tells you that same-sex families are bad for the kids or bad for society, they don't know what they're talking about. Odds are they've never had any first-hand experience, but only read or heard rightwing extremist propaganda. I speak from years of personal experience with family, friends and neighbors.
December 2nd, 2008 at 6:01 amSomebody stop this guy. He's just hurting himself now.
December 3rd, 2008 at 3:04 pmWhat a load of double-speak crapola! This is the type of up-is-down jibberish that the Religicans always use to keep their sheep in line. "There, there...don't think, just follow the shepherd. He knows what's best."
December 4th, 2008 at 5:51 pmSo normal traditional marriage is now called "opposite sex-marriage". Wow what has happened to this country!
December 7th, 2008 at 7:15 pmHow about this? Let’s eliminate the word “marriage” from any and all laws. Let’s call them, from now on, civil unions. Because that’s what marriage is, as far as the State is concerned. Taking the word “marriage” out of this whole issue basically eliminates the opposition to it, because that’s what the far right is fighting against, the word. They use their fear tactics to say that the institution of marriage is being threatened by us homosexuals. Believe me, it isn’t. All we want is the rights we deserve.
December 7th, 2008 at 9:32 pmIf people are so threatened by any “attack” on traditional marriage, then why don’t we outlaw divorce? If people are so passionate about family values, then why don’t we outlaw divorce? Why don’t we crack down on child abuse? Why don’t we crack down on underage pregnancy (and not by abstinence only education, it has been proven it doesn’t work) or deadbeat dads? Why must we be focused on eliminating the rights of one group of people we feel threatened by, instead of working on issues that are actually causing harm to this country?
Let’s talk about the economy for a moment. If we allow same-sex marriage, do you realize how big an industry the same-sex wedding industry could be? Does anyone realize how much money could be put into the economy if gays could get married?
Ol' Huck has conveniently forgotten that marriage has not "forever" been between one man and one woman. In fact, in his very own religio-social tradition, it used to be one man, many women. But hey, let's not confuse him with facts.
December 8th, 2008 at 6:31 amMarriage is between one man, and one woman the Bible makes this very clear. There is no biblical suggestion that polygamy is good, or that homosexuality is good at all. Those were always sins in the Bible even when prominent men were guilty of them it was made clear they were sins...
The Bible is extremely clear that marriage is between one man and one woman, Ephesians 6.
It's tiresome for people to claim that you can be banned from doing something when the definition of that thing excludes you.
December 9th, 2008 at 5:44 pmWhat about us that don't use your rule book? Your great big book of everything not withstanding...
December 9th, 2008 at 10:18 pmTo Dbadass: Christianity, the Bible is extremely rational. I think it’s funny that Atheists think they are using “reason” and “logic” to justify their Atheism.
If you ever actually read the Bible you may find it hard to disprove, not because it talks about the unprovable but because of what it talks about that is irrefutable.
For instance: Why did the Pharisees (the religious leaders in Israel back then) not just expose Jesus Christ as a hoax? They had done so with ‘Miracle Workers’ for the last 300 years at the time, there had not been “miracles” in the Holy Land for that long until Jesus Christ.
Other Miracle workers were exposed as hoaxes and are recorded as such not just in the Bible but in contemporary historical documents by Titus and by Josephus, the latter attested to Christ’s existence and miracles.
The Pharisees rather tried to blaspheme the holy spirit saying it was the Devil’s work in Christ. Why didn’t they just expose him as a hoax to the masses?
Why didn’t they pull Jesus Christ up on the Temple Mount and gather a huge crowd of Jews and say “ok Christ, prove to us you can heal” and expose him as a hoax?
The question is of course rhetorical, the Bible is rational, it doesn’t prove anything, it only eliminates doubt. That is what allows you to have faith.
Because we have free will, God cannot reveal truth to you or you would have no free will. We must be in the dark, and have faith to “get it” which is the message of the Gospel.
Now you can complain I’m shoving religion down your throat but what I’m really doing is preaching you the Gospel, and now that you’ve heard it you should probably explore it; because God will not forgive you anymore of your ignorance. Your salvation now is dependent upon your coming to Christ, to accepting him into your heart and letting the Holy Spirit guide you and believe me there is a Holy Spirit.
Remember I had turned from God for 14 years, half of those I was a proclaimed Atheist, I have since accepted the Holy Spirit into my heart and believe me there is a Holy Spirit.
It is like a drug, it can be described no other way, and like a drug, you want all your friends to be doing it too…and that goes back to “love thy neighbor” and how it refers to Evangelism.
God Bless!
And to the gays here remember, sins are pardonable, if you accept the Holy Spirit into your heart, truly, it will guide you too, and if you are not guided to be heterosexual it’s not like you’re going to Hell for a sin, you’re doing your best as God made you to be righteous.
December 10th, 2008 at 12:21 amI'll take Romney against Huckabee any day. Huckabee rants and raves about Romney being dirty and spending so much on attack ads. How can that clown say anything after his ridiculous book where he attacks Romney on 29 separate pages and Mitt is still trying to take the high road. Don't get me wrong, I'm not the biggest Mitt fan in the world, but I do feel a bit bad that people like Huckabee got so far by attacking Mitt's religion.
December 12th, 2008 at 12:06 pm"Always has been": Although a pastor, it seems it's been some time since The Huckster has read his Bible: what we call marriage today has absolutely NOTHING to do with ANY marriage described in the Bible. I challenge him to provide one Biblical example of the romantic, ideally life-long, somewhat egalitarian institution we have today. Could he, today, divorce his wife by simply saying so? Is his wife regarded as the equal of his sheep? THAT is Biblical marriage; our marriage only has the word in common with it.
December 23rd, 2008 at 2:56 pmThis is the first time I've seen the text of Prop 8. It actually says "Eliminates right." Wow, that is scary.
The Religious Right should be as concerned as anyone about eliminating rights. Freedom of religion is a right. What happens if 50%+1 of Americans suddenly decide they are tired of evangelical Christians? If the right to bare arms or practice religion was taken away by a majority vote, would they simply say "ok, the people have spoken"?
December 24th, 2008 at 1:14 pmThey simply affirmed that which already has and forever has existed.
Uh......no it hasn't. Actually in some ancient cultures into the Medieval era gays and lesbians were allowed to get married because marriage was used to gain property and money for families...but let's forget that. Let's just set aside history and pretend he's right....does this mean that you are not "banning" my girlfriend and I from getting married if one of us wears a tux and says we're a guy? It would be between a man and woman at that point, right? Maybe one of us should completely dress in drag with facial hair and everything to make you more comfortable? And it wasn't necessarily that Obama supporters voted for the prop hate, what about people who chose not to vote for the president? I know people who only voted for amendments. And I'm sure some Obama supporters did vote for it, the numbers wouldn't change that dramatically, but how well was it advertised by the OPPOSITION to the amendment? Not very well from what I've heard. So is it any surprise that the borderline people didn't know the full extend of what it implied and that it would have such an overwhelming impact?
December 30th, 2008 at 2:06 am