One reason I oppose gay marriage…
In a post over at Times and Seasons, Jonathan Green pretty accurately summarized the tone of the California Prop 8 discussion:
- If you oppose gay marriage, you are a bigot.
- If you support gay marriage, you are a tool of Satan.
The libertarian in me really doesn’t care if 5% of the gay/lesbian population, which is realistically only 4-6% of the larger population, wants to get married. They’ve been marrying religiously for years by gay-sympathizing clergy, and under current California domestic partnership law, gay and lesbian couples have no more legal rights with legal gay marriage than they did before. Perhaps I’m wrong, but it seems to me to be more about socio-cultural recognition and affirmation of the validity of their lifestyle choice (and I used the term choice deliberately; while same-sex feelings may not be a choice, the lifestyle built in response to those feelings is a choice) than it is about legal rights.
While the September 19 Op-Ed in the LA Times, “Protecting marriage to protect children,” by David Blankenhorn, author of Fatherless America: Confronting Our Most Urgent Social Problem, is old news, its message resonates with one of the impressions that I have begun having in the last few months regarding gay marriage.
I believe that in America, there are certain freedoms that need to be respected. I support the right for gay couples to have certain legal benefits and to be protected from certain types of discrimination, such as housing or employment discrimination. I support hospital visitation and insurance coverage protection. This is already much more than the Church ever asked when it practiced plural marriage. All the Church wanted was for their practice to not be criminalized and to be left alone to practice their religion as they desired. (Oh, and I support the decriminalization of polygamy as well).
The America I want, and the America I vote for, is an America whose laws and social policies both protects rights while simultaneously promoting social goods. While I believe people have the right to be in same-sex relationships, I do not believe gay marriage is a social good. I believe it is a social harm, long term. In Blankenhorn’s article, he states that the “birthright” of children is to be raised by their biological parents and that the purpose of marriage has always primarily been to shape the rights and obligations of parenthood—not to socially affirm the love between two consenting adults:
“Marriage as a human institution is constantly evolving, and many of its features vary across groups and cultures. But there is one constant. In all societies, marriage shapes the rights and obligations of parenthood. Among us humans, the scholars report, marriage is not primarily a license to have sex. Nor is it primarily a license to receive benefits or social recognition. It is primarily a license to have children.
“In this sense, marriage is a gift that society bestows on its next generation. Marriage (and only marriage) unites the three core dimensions of parenthood – biological, social and legal – into one pro-child form: the married couple. Marriage says to a child: The man and the woman whose sexual union made you will also be there to love and raise you. Marriage says to society as a whole: For every child born, there is a recognized mother and a father, accountable to the child and to each other.”
The entire Op-Ed—by a self-described “liberal democrat”—is worth reading.
While I believed prior to his Op-Ed, it reconfirmed what I believe to be a sacred responsibility of our larger culture. As Viktor Frankl, celebrated neurologist and psychiatrist, has said, in order to have freedom endure, liberty must be joined with responsibility. To that end, he proposed that the “Statue of Liberty on the East Coast be supplemented by a Statue of Responsibility on the West Coast.” How fitting that it is on the west coast that the largest gay marriage battle ever fought in America is taking place. I believe we as US citizens need to take a long look at not just the immediate affects of same-sex marriage (there will likely be few), but the long-term trickle-down, ripple affects that it will surely have.
I speak only for myself as I say this, and not for any other Northern Lights contributor, but while I fully support many gay rights—and would actively promote them in states where they are currently not enjoyed—I am opposed to gay marriage and would vote Yes on 8 if I lived in CA, or similarly if I lived in Arizona or Florida where similar amendments have been proposed.
1 --on November 3rd, 2008 at 12:29 pm
This is why some pro-gay-marriage people feel like they would be justified in calling you a bigot (and please understand that I’m not saying that I think that you are or that they are correct).
If I say that I “support many gay rights” I am implicitly recognizing “gays” as a distinct group of people deserving of rights. If I believe in “liberty and justice for all”, then, I have to believe that gays deserve all the rights that everyone else gets.
Currently, marriage is a government-recognized contractual relationship with government-granted legal benefits and privileges. It’s also a religious institution. But as long as governments are granting legal status to marriage, it should be considered a “right”, which means it should be available to everyone. Attempting to withhold that right from a minority group is no different from withholding the right to vote from women or the right to attend certain schools from blacks, or any other rights that have been withheld from any other minorities throughout our history.
If my Church feels that marriage, as a religious institution, should not be a privilege extended to gay couples, it should have every right to deny marriage, as a religious institution, to whomever it wants. But to attempt to deny marriage, as a government-recognized relationship and government-granted civil right, is wrong.
The only way to deny “marriage” to gay couples without being discriminatory or bigoted is to deny it to everyone. That is, to remove “marriage” from the list of government-granted civil rights, allowing neither heterosexual nor homosexual couples to enter into government-recognized marriages–to cause “marriage” as a government-endorsed relationship to cease to exist.
That way, the government can grant “civil union” or “domestic partnership” rights without prejudice or bias, to any couple that wants them, while the churches can reserve “marriage”, as a religious institution, as an exclusive privilege for couples who qualify under whatever rules they see fit to apply.
But as long as I expect the government to recognize a heterosexual’s right to enter into a government-endorsed “marriage”, I cannot expect that same right to be denied to a homosexual and still protest when others call me a bigot.
2 --on November 3rd, 2008 at 1:04 pm
For an editorial with a different opinion see the LA Times http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-prop8-2-2008nov02,0,5926932.story
3 --on November 3rd, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Scott, you make some good points, but I disagree that homosexual marriage is a “right.” I believe we have the moral and social responsibility to promote the policies that are best for society and culture at large. The point of Blankenhorn’s op-ed that I agree with is that this idea that marriage is purely a social contract that affirms the love of two consenting adults is not what marriage was ever intended to be. And the social contract that affirms the love and legal oblications of two consenting adults is what gay and lesbian couples already have. Again, this isn’t about lack of legal rights; it’s about the culture we live in, and that affects everyone. I want a culture where people have legal rights; I don’t want to live in a culture of absolute moral relativism and where there is no such thing as a social good worthy of promotion.
4 --on November 3rd, 2008 at 4:00 pm
Ty Ray,
I want to clarify before I start. I do not believe you are a bigot. I do however believe the churches actions to smack of bigotry, and this is why.
The church argued for the right of polygamy on the bases of it being part of our free exercise of our religion. We said: We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may. In fact we still say this. It is part of our stander works. This is canonized scripture. I do not believe it was a stretch for us to say that marriage is part of how we worship almighty God. For without living the new and everlasting covenant we can not enter into God’s highest degree of glory.
When we strive to make this type of marriage illegal we are not allowing homosexuals to worship how, where, or what they may. In so doing we are putting homosexuals below all men.
I can think of many religious practices that we as a church do not condone, even forms of marriage, but in all other cases I know of other than same-sex-marriage we let them worship how, where, or what they may. Thus we treat all except homosexuals as men.
5 --on November 3rd, 2008 at 5:32 pm
A major difference, though, GFB—one that simply cannot be argued—is that the Church never asked for what the gay and lesbian community is asking. The Church only wanted to practice its religious tenets without Government interference. They weren’t asking for special rights or social endorsement of plural marriage—only free practice. They simply didn’t want to be sent to prison and have their temples confiscated.
The gay and lesbian community already has much MORE than the Church ever asked for its own practice. There is no hypocrisy here. The Church isn’t asking for homosexuality to be criminalized or those in gay relationships to have all their property confiscated and to be sent to prison. What the Church wants to so maintain a socially endorsed standard of marriage between a man and a woman as the ideal atmosphere for the raising and nurturing of children.
6 --on November 3rd, 2008 at 5:47 pm
Leave the word “homosexual” out of it for now. Do you believe that marriage is a right?
If it is, then it should be granted to all people, including gays.
If it isn’t, then we should also be perfectly comfortable preventing, say… Irish people from getting married. Or plumbers. Or people who wear size 11 sneakers.
If marriage is a government-granted right, we cannot refuse marriage to a group of people based solely on sexual orientation, especially when we have already recognized that group as a minority by specifically granting them other rights.
I’ll head off the two obvious arguments.
Yes, we can still refuse marriage to someone who wants to marry a 9-year-old or to someone who wants to marry a dog. There is nothing wrong with a law that prohibits an action as long as that law doesn’t single out a particular group of people. A law that prohibits Jews from marrying dogs but allows everyone else to do so would be wrong.
And no, the fact that gay people already have the right to marry someone of the opposite gender does not count. This does not give gays the same rights as straight people. Straight people currently have the right to marry someone who they are naturally attracted to and compatible with. Gay people do not have that right, and are forced to choose between remaining single or entering a marriage that has a much lower chance of happiness than those available to straight people.
7 --on November 3rd, 2008 at 6:04 pm
Ty Ray,
You bring up good points. The right for marriage that homosexuals currently have in CA is far more than the church had with polygamy. Also, if that right is revoked tomorrow through the effort of the church and others it is more than perhaps the church was asking for, and definitely more than they every had.
My point was not that the church is hypocritical for not giving these people what they were asking for. My point is that the church is bigoted because with this action they are denying homosexuals what our doctrine says we grant all men. We are treating them less than men according to our doctrine.
8 --on November 3rd, 2008 at 6:05 pm
“Perhaps I’m wrong, but it seems to me to be more about socio-cultural recognition and affirmation of the validity of their lifestyle choice (and I used the term choice deliberately; while same-sex feelings may not be a choice, the lifestyle build in response to those feelings is a choice) than it is about legal rights.”
Yes, you are wrong. Just because you wish to curb your own sexual orientation does not mean that those who do not are somehow less Godly than you.
9 --on November 3rd, 2008 at 6:13 pm
I was going to refrain from commenting further on Northern Lights, but I did want to comment on this thread.
According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, not only is marriage a right, but so are founding a family and freely developing one’s own personality. Combining these three rights we have a very strong argument that gay marriage is, indeed, a right (especially when the concept of dignity is mentioned all throughout the ‘Universal Declaration of Human Rights’).
It is also a right that all universal rights should not be infringed upon by any set of religious beliefs.
In other words, in deciding whether gay marriage and families founded therefrom (as a sidetracking note: gay marriage isn’t just about getting legal protection for the gay couple but for the right to unite together as a family equal in all ways to any other family) are moral, it is essential to base that decision on mores free from religion.
According to the mores unbiased by religion (I am referring specifically to the major psychological associations), homosexuality is no longer seen as deviant behavior and children raised by homosexual parents are seen as developing equally to children raised by heterosexual parents.
There is no reason, other than religious belief, to deny homosexuals the universal rights to dignified marriage, family, and personality — as a homosexual, according to the non-religious mores are performing equally to the heterosexual counterpart.
Religious definitions of marriage, family, and personality should never infringe upon the legal, universally social/communal definitions of marriage, family, and personality. And while I understand from where stems the belief that homosexual marriage is a social harm, it is a religious belief and, therefore, unlawful to use as fodder in proclaiming that homosexuals do not have a right to marriage based on morality — again, because the definition of ‘immoral’ (harmful/wrong) is being based on religion from which universal rights are free.
10 --on November 3rd, 2008 at 6:19 pm
GFB, how is the Church hypocritical for not giving people what they ask? There is nothing in the Church’s doctrine that says every want of every person should be given legal endoresment. It states that we grant all people to worship how, where, or what they may. Gay and lesbian couples can already have religous marriages with legal rights granted by California law. Legal right it participate in a certain behavior is not the same thing as legal right for socio-cultural endorsement of that behavior.
11 --on November 3rd, 2008 at 6:21 pm
I also wanted to comment on this statement — again, referring to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
One’s lifestyle choice is rightfully equal to any other’s lifestyle choice — and should be treated equally by law — as long as it does not infringe upon another’s just rights.
(I use the word ‘just’ as it is believed by some to be a right for children to be raised by a biological mother and a biological mother… as far as I’ve seen, such is a religiously believed right and not a universally social/communal right (therefore, this right should be upheld within the justices of that religion but not within the justices of society in large).)
12 --on November 3rd, 2008 at 6:34 pm
Scott, I don’t know that what you are saying works. I very much resonate with the op-ed that “In all societies, marriage shapes the rights and obligations of parenthood.” Marriage is not a right but a responsibility—to the objects of our creation. I believe any other view of marriage is irresponsible. I believe the Proclamation on the Family when it states that “Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity”—and, particularly, whenever possible, by the mother and father who created them. This is their birthright and my belief is that social policy around marriage and family should nurture a culture that promotes this end. Gay marriage does not. You may not accept this, but I do. I respect that some may differ in their perspective; I grant that. All I ask is for the same in return.
13 --on November 3rd, 2008 at 7:55 pm
Ty Ray,
To call something marriage legally is a very religious thing to do. In fact after polygamy was made illegal some people continued to practice it but not legally calling what they did marriage. Our church apparently did not continue to be convertible religiously with this so we have the manifesto. Other groups who call themselves Mormons still believing polygamy should be legal, continue to have plural sexual relationships, but they are not marriage and therefore they are legal.
Having a legal marriage is important for monogamy and religion. Calling a monogamous relationship marriage for many is part of how they worship God. More importantly it is how we worship God. So part of our definition of worshiping how, where, or what they may is about choosing how you religiously believe marriage should be defined. We have honored this belief with everyone else except homosexuals.
Death do us part ceremonies. Ceremonies not performed by one having authority. Even open marriages. We even let quickie Los Vegas still marriage and divorces alone. We have never tried to make these illegal. We let them all worship how, where, or what they may.
14 --on November 3rd, 2008 at 8:17 pm
Okay, just so I know where you stand.
I totally respect your right to an opinion, and I hope that I’ve not implied in any way that I feel otherwise.
I was simply trying to indicate that if we consider marriage a right, it is wrong to deny it to a group of people. If you do not consider it a right, then it is perfectly reasonable to believe that it should be reserved for certain individuals.
Taken to its logical conclusion, we should begin screening applicants for marriage licenses to determine their suitability as parents–to determine whether their marriage would promote a social ideal of the family as an entity in which children can be born and raised by both mother and father. We can then weed out those who would not be suitable parents, which would surely be in the best interest of their potential future children.
Okay. I’m being a bit glib. I’m all for the nuclear family as an ideal, but the Proclamation itself recognizes that many families deviate from the ideal by circumstances beyond their control. It could be argued that single-parent families do not promote the ideal. I don’t think that many would argue with the fact that unwed parents don’t promote the ideal.
I submit that a same-sex-headed family in which both fathers or mothers are required to make a conscious and conscientious decision to have children and then jump through the hoops of the adoption system in order to obtain those children is far more likely to be a nurturing environment for those children than a good percentage of homes in which kids are currently being raised. I believe that a far greater percentage of same-sex-headed families actually come closer to the ideal of a nurturing environment for children than that of traditionally-married families.
I don’t believe that straight people are going to stop getting married and having kids if gay marriage is legal (and before anyone cites statistics from various European countries I’ll remind everyone that correlation does not prove causation, that marriage was on the decline before gay marriage became legal in many of those countries, and that there’s no reason to believe that there is any connection).
Yes, by legalizing gay marriage we are saying that we agree that a same-sex-headed family is valid as a vehicle for the nurturing and raising of children, and I understand the objection to that by those who believe in the ideal, but the truth is we are already moving farther and farther from the ideal every day, and I honestly don’t believe that gay marriage will hasten that departure.
15 --on November 4th, 2008 at 7:48 am
Craig and daager, your most recent comments have been deleted. While you are welcome to post reasonable comments that may share a different perspective, comments that include cynical, derisive, or degrading statements, which are our of harmony with the Comment Policy, are inappropriate for this forum.
Andrew, you made a couple statements I disagreed with, but they were appropriate for the forum in both tone and nature. It was your final comment in response to Craig’s comment that was the reason I deleted your comment. You were not being ignored, and his comment was simply cynical projection; and you affirmed it. As I was deleting his, I decided not to leave a comment that was a response to it. There is enough negativity in the comments from those who want to criticize the Church’s perspective that I’ve made the decision to delete in my posts those comments that I feel have even a hint of cynicism.
16 --on November 4th, 2008 at 8:20 am
“Perhaps I’m wrong, but it seems to me to be more about socio-cultural recognition and affirmation of the validity of their lifestyle choice (and I used the term choice deliberately; while same-sex feelings may not be a choice, the lifestyle build in response to those feelings is a choice) than it is about legal rights.”
That is a derisive, cynical and degrading statement, Mr Ty Ray. It is unfortunate that you do not see the outrageousness of such a comment to those who are gay. You have somehow convinced yourself that its “common knowledge” that people are not gay… they just have “same-sex feelings”. Being gay is not the Mormon way?
17 --on November 4th, 2008 at 9:04 am
Perhaps you forget, daager, that the perspective here is based on some very specific assumptions—the foremost of those being that Mormonism is true. You may not share that assumption; that is fine. But know that posts here are going to be built upon that foundational idea, so don’t take offense when that concept is promoted. And it is foundational to Mormonism that same-sex relationship are not in harmony with our ultimate potential as the sons and daughters of God.
I attended a meeting this last weekend at my professions national conference that was, in part, conducted by an activist for Soulforce. Aside from the fact that his agenda was inappropriate to nature of the conference, and that he was teaching some pretty disingenuous things about those who do not embrace a gay identity. But to be respectful to the time and forum given to him to promote his ideas, I was careful about how I framed my comments. I would hope for the same from those who may not share the assumptions here. All I ask is that you honor the Comment Policy or not post or not be surprised when comments that violate that policy are removed.
18 --on November 4th, 2008 at 10:52 am
Daager,
I agree with your opinion concerning same-sex-attraction and being gay. I would like to defend Ty Ray on his point of this blog. I must say I did not see what comments were delegated, but in defense of Ty Ray he will and has in the past openly debate the whole same-sex-attraction verses gay thing. To blog here we may have to put up with the assumption that homosexuality is not a reality in others post, but we can freely debate that idea.
Ty Ray please correct me if I am wrong.
Daager I encourage you to directly explain your point on this issue. I think it is important. I think continuing the idea that homosexuality is not real only promotes the ill treatment of homosexuals in our wards.
19 --on November 4th, 2008 at 11:23 am
GFB, as it states in the About section of the blog, this blog was formed to “foster open and extensive discussion on homosexuality within the framework of commitment to the beliefs and ideals of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.”
As it states in the Comment Policy,
This is the policy, and it will be enforced. As I said before, there are some foundational ideas here—a belief in and commitment to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Those who do not accept that assumption are welcome to post comments that are at the very least respectful to that assumption. If they cannot, their comments will be removed. Repeat violators will be banned from posting altogether.
If I understand your remarks correctly, GFB, within the umbrella of commitment to core gospel principles as taught by the Church, there is a range of ideas that are open to discussion. For example: how one might best address the question of heterosexual marriage or singlehood in this lifetime would be appropriate; efforts to defend homosexual relationships as moral and acceptable are not. Discussing how Latter-day Saint families might best show love and respect for the agency of their gay-identified loved ones is acceptable; advocating for a change in the doctrines and policies as outlined by the Church is not. Discussing how Latter-day Saints might better build positive relationships with their gay- and lesbian-identified brothers and sisters is acceptable; decrying Latter-day Saints and their leaders as bigots and homophobes for not affirming gay and lesbian relationships as moral is not.
To say that “homosexuality” (orientation? attraction? behavior?) isn’t “real”, GFB, is confusing. I don’t know that most Latter-day Saints would say it isn’t “real”. How the attraction develops and whether or not it can be changed is a different conversation, but I think most would accept that it’s “real”, though I’m not sure what you mean by that. Most would agree with Latter-day Saint doctrine, however, that homosexual behavior is not in harmony with the revealed word and will of God. Others might feel differently, and that is clearly their right. Latter-day Saint beliefs is formed in response to a specific cosmology and belief-ideal regarding the nature of family formation and sexual expression.
20 --on November 4th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
Scott, the idea that marriage, as a right, has been withheld from gays relies on accepting the a priori proposition that marriage can be between gays. If marriage is by definition between opposite gendered folks, it has ALWAYS been available to gays regardless of their orientation and without discrimination. Heterosexual marriage just isn’t what they want, and that’s an individual choice. Arguing that marriage, on their own terms, is a matter of equal rights for gays is to me like arguing that girls should be allowed in the Boy Scouts—it’s based on a group that wants to be accommodated even if the accommodation changes the nature of the issue.
The prospect that marriage does not have to be between opposite gendered folks is a legitimate definition, it just doesn’t happen to be universal, and assuming it in a logical policy position ends up performing an equivocation on marriage.
21 --on November 4th, 2008 at 5:28 pm
What an interesting thing to say! It really is quite stark the way marriage as a right clashes with marriage as a responsibility. Thanks for your post, Ty.
22 --on November 5th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
Marriage, the contractual union of two consenting adults, is absolutely a right… a right of the OFFSPRING. The marital institution protects the rights and upholds the interests of the individuals that may be produced from sexual union.
Ty is dead-on, 100%.
Perhaps it’s natural, with technological advances in the realm of human conception and contraception that the essential significance and definition of marriage is being called into question.
The concept of marriage has become so warped and distorted over the last several years that various cultures and societies now consider same-sex couples as marital candidates. Same-sex couples are necessarily infertile and necessarily exempt from marital status.
As a gay man, I can write that without conflict because that’s the way it is.
23 --on November 6th, 2008 at 10:22 am
From what you’ve said, I take it you’re not aware of the differences between marriage and civil unions.
The idea many people have that civil unions offer the same legal benefits as marriage simply is not true.
For starters, civil unions are not recognized by the federal government. This means a same-sex spouse from a foreign country cannot become a citizen by entering into a civil union. More prominently, it also means that couples with a civil union may not file joint tax returns or share federal Social Security benefits upon the death of the other. And those are just the basics.
For the sake of brevity, I won’t delve into the numerous other ways civil unions don’t approximate the legal protection of a conventional marriage, but they are numerous and well documented elsewhere.
I’m interested to hear your views on strengthening the current civil unions laws so they include greater benefits, federal recognition, and have more teeth in legally protecting couples, since you seem to express support for the civil union set-up.
Thank you for your post.
24 --on November 6th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
Ty Ray,
I am sorry it has taken me so long to answer your question concerning what I meant about homosexuality being real.
I know many Mormons personally that will tell me directly that homosexuality is not real because the proclamation says that gender is eternal. I think that you would agree that this reasoning is flawed.
I think the whole idea that Elder Oaks started by suggesting it is against our religious beliefs to use homosexual to describe an individual. His reasoning is to say that to use the word this way is to imply that someone has no choice in their behavior. I think this logic is just as flawed as the previous logic, because if this were true it would also mean that since I am heterosexual I have no choice but to have sex with women. The truth is to give same-sex-orientation a name equal to that with which we use for opposite-sex-orientation just points out the fact that the feelings of homosexuality are no more chosen than the feelings of heterosexuality.
I also believe refusal to use words like gay or homosexual promotes fear of the word and of the people. Remember why Dumbledore and Harry never said you-know-how they said Voldemort, because fear of a word promotes fear of the thing itself.
I believe strongly that homosexuals and heterosexuals have complete choice and freedom to choose their behavior, and they do not choose their sexual orientation. I believe this practice of using same-sex-attraction instead of come out and saying homosexuality reinforces many many misconceptions the general population of Mormons have about the subject.
I admire your choice of abstinence in this life, and your ability to keep the perspective of abstinence instead of celibacy. I believe we should celebrate you choice as a Mormon culture, but I do not believe we do. I believe most Mormon homosexuals that make this choice and other difficult choices to live the gospel do so in secrecy and shame hiding who they are from their ward families, as if being gay was something to be ashamed of. I believe that this secrecy only reinforces bigotry and misinformation of those ward members that live right next to homosexual members and do not know it.
I believe like Elder Wickman that homosexuality is a central or core characteristic, just as heterosexuality is. I am grateful that I can live openly as a heterosexual man in my Mormon society, and I wish homosexuals could do the same. Living openly as a heterosexual has nothing to do with whether I am having sex or not, just as living openly as a homosexual has nothing to do with someone is living the gospel or not.
As we as a people refuse to use the words gay and homosexual and only use the words same-sex-attraction we promote the idea that being gay is in some ones mind, and is merely a temptation the same as being tempted to speed on the free way or to have sex with another mans wife. We promote the idea that it is not real. We also take the chance away from Mormons to realize they know and love homosexuals all around them in their wards.
25 --on November 6th, 2008 at 7:16 pm
Thanks for that post GFB - you explained that very well.