Joe Perry, guitarrista do Aerosmith, afirma que Steven Tyler não faz mais parte do grupo.

O guitarrista Joe Perry, em entrevista ao jornal americano Las Vegas Sun, confirmou a saída de Tyler da banda de Hard Rock americana. “Até onde eu posso dizer, Steven saiu da banda. Não sei muito mais do que isso”, revelou Perry.

A banda não sabe se vai substituir Steven Tyler

Boatos sobre a saída de Steven Tyler do Aerosmith já estavam  circulando há um certo tempo, ganharam mais intensidade quando Joe Perry disse que o cantor queria se dedicar a projetos alternativos.

De acordo com Joe Perry, Tyler não mantém contato com mais ninguém do Aerosmith e nem atende as ligações dos companheiros do grupo. “Eu vi na internet que Steven disse que ia sair da banda. Não sei por quanto tempo, se é indefinidamente ou qualquer outra coisa”, disse.

Joe também disse que a banda se esforçou para manter Tyler no grupo: “Nos últimos meses, tentei não balançar o barco e fazer com que ele cancelasse mais apresentações. Nós queríamos fazer estes últimos quatro shows, e por isso, tentamos não irritá-lo e deixamos a coisa fluir. Fizemos os shows, eu voltei para a casa e agora vejo isto na internet”. A banda cancelou uma série de concertos em agosto após o cantor ter caido do palco e quebrado o ombro.

Na entrevista do guitarrista base, Brad Whitford, à revista Classic Rock, ele comentou sobre a possibilidade de substituição de Steven Tyler.

“Eu não sei quão bom seria, isso dependerá muito de quando poderíamos começar e quem gostaria de participar. Será uma grande substituição. Ninguém pode substituir Steven ou imitá-lo – ele é único. Mas se alguém estiver disposto a fazê-lo e a química estiver correta, porque não?” declarou Whitford.

Fonte: CifraClub News

Meus pêsames, ao nosso autor Luca, cuja banda favorita é o próprio Aerosmith. Compreendo que nesse momento você deve estar se sentindo mal, tendo convulsões e ataques epilépticos (que não deixam de ser convulsões), mas seja forte! Sabemos o que você está passando, e não te deixaremos na mão! Aconteça o que acontecer, NÃO vá para luz!!

This Sunday, October 25, The Dance Complex in Cambridge, Mass. will be hosting Sheryl Murakami (Beyonce, Thalia) and Alonzo Williams (Rhythm City, ABDC Season 4) for a series of workshops.  If you’re in the Boston area, these are a great way to round out the workshop weekend after the Bulletproof Fubes Project workshops!

Check the Facebook event for more details.

http://www.therightperspective.org/2009/10/13/obama-swastika-carved-into-golf-course/

Police and grounds keepers at a Massachusetts golf  course are trying to figure out how someone snuck onto the grounds and carved a giant swastika message for Barack Obama onto the field – and what exactly did they mean with their message. 

The swastika two traditional messages. When rotating counter-clockwise, it is the symbol used by National Socialist Germany and is widely considered a “hate” icon. However, Hindu and Buhdist faiths use the a clockwise-rotating swastika in their religion and is a considered to be symbol for good luck, hope, and peace.

The 10-foot-by-10-foot swastika found engraved into the green at the 18th hole at the Lakeville Country Club is rotating clockwise, part of the phrase “I (swastika) Obama”. Police are not sure if the vandal or vandals made a mistake or not.

Groundskeepers will use sod to fill in the giant engraving.

Ego, Ego, Ego. It’s not about race it’ about Ego. Police Officers cannot walk away that’s what it boils down to. No crime was committed it was just an upset homeowner no law against that he wasn’t being loud enough for neighbors to hear just loud enough for officers to hear. It wasn’t disorderly conduct or disturbing the peace or the City attorney would have made the charges stick. Again it’s ego police officers feel they must have the last word they must flex there muscle. Officers feel it’s law to obey them it’s Not, it’s law to obey laws. If you don’t like what I have to say or I’m say it to loudly leave that’s the best way to diffuse the situation. Officers don’t look for ways to diffuse they look for ways to show their authority.

Went to Acadia National Park, Maine where pretty much every bird Margot saw were life birds but since she isn’t a birder yet she didn’t seem impressed with my two lifers; Common Eider and Black Guillemot. Bar Harbor was a nice little town where we enjoyed breakfast and then went back to exploring the park.
The day stayed relatively dreary with fog and drizzle but the sun did break through on occasion. Margot went to sleep in the back of the truck as I explored Cadillac Mountain and the rest of Acadia. After exploring the lighthouse where Margot awoke (she loves lighthouses!) we left the park to continue the adventure heading south for the first time.
I drove for a bit then Margot took back over. She drove through New Hampshire and Massachusetts, where I apparently dozed through most of Boston. We ended up in Watch Hill Rhode Island where I took back over the driving. Margot spent many summers at a friends house in Watch Hill. I never knew about her adventures there and was thrilled to learn of her life there. We then headed on to Stamford, Connecticut where we took a motel for the night.
489 miles

We toured Niagara Falls which is an amazing place. It was the first location where the weather was not as cooperative with light rain on and off all day. The falls are split basically in two with Horseshoe Falls separating the United States from Canada. The American Falls are solely in the U.S.
We wandered around taking photos and then hiked on the Three Sisters Islands, we called our sister Tara so all three Sheehey sisters were present on the Island, it made the experience more complete. Margot and I wished Tara was with us but cell phones are great for sharing the moment.
We would have driven into Canada which would have been a first for me but alas, you now need a passport to visit our neighbors now. Got to love all the freedoms we lost with the Patriot Act.
Anyway, with a wish to visit all of the New England states we drove off to Bennington, Vermont and then down to Massachusetts and New Hampshire on our way to Maine. Margot drove almost the entire way as exhaustion set in and I was falling asleep at the wheel. She was amazing as she drove all night. We arrived at Bar Harbor, Maine as dawn broke.
739 miles

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court said Thursday that a convicted rapist has no constitutional right to test biological evidence used at his trial in Alaska years earlier, leaving it to the states to decide when prisoners get access to genetic evidence that might prove their innocence.

In a 5-4 vote, with the conservative justices in the majority, the court said it would not second-guess states or force them routinely to look again at criminal convictions.

William Osborne, convicted in a brutal assault on a prostitute in Alaska 16 years ago, sued for the right to test the contents of a blue condom the victim says was used by her attacker. A federal appeals court said he had a right to conduct the test.

Alaska is one of only three states without a law that gives convicts access to genetic evidence. The others are Massachusetts and Oklahoma.

Testing so far has led to the exoneration of 240 people who had been found guilty of murder, rape and other violent crimes, according to the Innocence Project, which works to free people who were wrongly convicted.

But Chief Justice John Roberts, in his majority opinion, said the states have moved quickly to grapple with the challenges and opportunities presented by advances in genetic testing.

“To suddenly constitutionalize this area would short-circuit what looks to be a prompt and considered legislative response,” Roberts said.

The chief justice said that new technology that was not available at trial should not throw fairly won convictions into doubt. “The dilemma is how to harness DNA’s power to prove innocence without unnecessarily overthrowing the established system of criminal justice,” he said.

Dissenting liberal justices and advocates for prisoners who seek genetic testing complained that the court is penalizing a small group of inmates who lack access to a simple test that would conclusively show their innocence, or reaffirm their guilt.

“The fact that nearly all the states have now recognized some postconviction right to DNA evidence makes it more, not less, appropriate to recognize a limited federal right to such evidence in cases where litigants are unfairly barred from obtaining relief in state court,” Justice John Paul Stevens said.

Peter Neufeld, a co-founder of The Innocence Project who argued Osborne’s case at the Supreme Court, said the ruling probably would not affect the vast majority of inmates seeking DNA testing.

But, Neufeld said, “There is no question that a small group of innocent people — and it is a small group — will languish in prison because they can’t get access to the evidence.”

The Obama administration, picking up the argument first made by the Bush administration, urged the court to reject the appeals court ruling and insist that inmates at least swear under oath to their innocence before being given access to the evidence. The federal DNA testing law has such a requirement.

In some states, laws limit testing to capital crimes or rule out after-the-fact tests for people who confess.

The woman in Alaska was raped, beaten with an ax handle, shot in the head and left for dead in a snow bank near Anchorage International Airport. The condom that was found nearby was used in the assault, she said.

The woman, who is white, identified Osborne, who is black, as one of her attackers. Another man also convicted in the attack has repeatedly incriminated him. Osborne himself described the assault in detail when he admitted his guilt under oath to the parole board in 2004.

In many exoneration cases, eyewitnesses picked out the wrong man, often with the victim of one race incorrectly identifying someone of a different color.

Osborne’s lawyer passed up advanced DNA testing at the time of his trial, fearing it could conclusively link him to the crime. A less-refined test by the state showed that the semen did not belong to other suspects but could be from Osborne, as well as about 15 percent of all African-American men.

Osborne is awaiting sentencing on another conviction, a robbery he committed after his parole.

The case is District Attorney’s Office v. Osborne, 08-6.

Associated Press via Yahoo! News

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court says criminal defendants have a constitutional right to cross-examine the forensic analysts who prepare laboratory reports on illegal drugs and other evidence used at trial.

The court on Thursday ruled 5-4 for a defendant who was convicted of cocaine trafficking, partly because of crime lab analysis.

Luis Melendez-Diaz challenged lab analysis that confirmed cocaine was in plastic bags found in the car he was riding in. Rather than accept the report, Melendez-Diaz said he should be allowed to question the lab analyst about testing methods, how the evidence was preserved and other issues.

Massachusetts courts rejected his arguments.

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the high court, said Melendez-Diaz has a constitutional right to confront the lab analyst.

You can stay in our house anytime. Gay friendly.

Address:

125 W Chandler Street

Boston 21548

map

website

The Boston Globe writes that Paul Levy, CEO of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, is “trying something revolutionary, radical, maybe even impossible.” How far will workers agree to go without to save jobs?

An intriguing look at a gay marriage case that will probably make it’s way to the Supreme Court.  In short, the legal argument made by the plaintiffs is that the federal government should defer to the states’ in the case of gay marriage — that the Defense of Marriage Act infringes on the laws made in Massachusetts and Connecticut which view same-sex marriages as legal unions.

Conservatives claim to care so much about states’ rights (although the decision by Obama’s DOJ to not go after states that have legalized medical marijuana, contra to what the Bush DOJ did, certainly puts the whole issue into context); I don’t really see how, if you believe that the states have the right to make and impose laws within their domain, you could support the federal government’s infringement. But if the case does make it to the Supreme Court, I’m sure it’s well with Scalia’s ability to come up with a surprising rejoinder.

—

Update: Andrew Sullivan, who was married in Massachusetts to his partner a few years ago, weighs in on this subject.  As expected, he does a wonderful job of culling out exactly how inhumane laws against gay marriage are.

According to reports today Senator Ted Kennedy’s brain cancer has worsened and he may have only a few months left with us.

However, there’s a twist to this story, the long time Massachusets Senator Kennedy may be grooming his wife  Vicki Kennedy to succeed him. Vicki Kennedy wouldn’t be the first wife to succeed her husband, according to Wikipedia seven of  the 37 women senators in US history (that figure is absolutely appalling) were appointed to succeed their husbands.

Massachusetts statutes have permitted people to run their business in the form of a limited liability company (“LLC”) for some time. Recently, however, the enabling statute has been amended to permit the use of a “single member” LLC. This makes the LLC a business entity which every business or real estate owner or investor, no matter what size, should understand.

The LLC combines the best aspects of incorporation with the tax advantages of partnership, without the red tape of either. This combination of benefits has never existed before in such a simple and effective way. Anyone conducting or starting a business must separate personal assets and life from their business ventures. To do otherwise may subject you to risk that is not necessary. An LLC can provide personal protection in its purest form.

What Is It?
An LLC is a blend of some of the best characteristics of corporations, partnerships and sole proprietorships. It is a separate entity like a corporation but is entitled to be treated as a partnership for tax purposes and, therefore, carries with it the “flow through” or “cellophane” tax treatment that corporations do not have. It is flexible and simple to run and, like a sole proprietorship, there is no statutory necessity to keep minutes, hold meetings, or make resolutions, some of which activities can trip up many corporate owners. A meticulous manager may decide to document every business action, but it is not a requirement of the statute.

The LLC is gaining popularity because it is based on the very important concept in America called freedom to contract. This means that the members (translate owners of equity) are free to agree among themselves how the entity is to be run, and that agreement (which takes the form of an operating agreement among all members) will be upheld in the courts. When you combine that concept with the fact that no member is personally liable for the company debts and profits and/or losses are passed directly through to the member, you have the “ultimate pass-through entity” as the LLC is being called. The LLC is becoming more and more the entity of choice for business in every realm and will continue to gain momentum as more and more business owners, and couples, learn of its existence.

Who Needs It?
Anyone who owns a business venture should be concerned with certain basis truths. It is a sad but true fact that our society is becoming more and more litigious every day, and more and more small business owners are finding themselves on the wrong side of law suits. Right or wrong the experience of defending a legal action is extremely stressful. The writer has not in 41 years of practice ever had a client who “enjoyed” being sued and experiencing the expense and disruption of a lawsuit. It makes sense to put a legal shield between yourself and the creditors of your business. The LLC is an entity completely separate from its members. With proper planning, none of the members of the LLC should be personally liable for the debts of the LLC whether they arise in contract or tort.

The LLC also offers some unique advantages for unmarried couples who own real estate together. The operating agreement of the LLC can be used to determine an “exit strategy” should the couple break up. More importantly, the operating agreement can be fashioned in such a way as to recognize disparate contributions of equity or disparate payments on the mortgage, so there can be no problems sorting our who owns what and who is entitled to what tax deduction. In many instances, the LLC can replace the use of joint tenancy agreements and tenancy in common agreements, which are often cumbersome and difficulty to administer and enforce.

Do you need to raise money for a real estate or venture capital project? The LLC is a perfect vehicle. Admitting new members is a simple process, and there are no statutory limits to the number and/or character of additional investors. They can include all types of individuals, corporations, trusts, pension plans, foreigners (both out of Massachusetts and out of the country). This is certainly not the case with the corporate structure that most closely rivals the LLC, the subchapter S corporation.

What Does It Cost?
The cost to set up and maintain an LLC are roughly comparable to setting up a corporation, (figure between $1,500 and $2,000 including filing fee and drafting of the articles of organization and operating agreement). After the initial cost, however, the ongoing costs are minimal. There is no need to hold an annual meeting of shareholders or directors. The person designated as “manager” in the articles of organization can take actions on behalf of the entity without the approval of directors. Moreover, in a single member LLC, we at Topkins & Bevans have determined that there is no need for an operating agreement, so that the initial cost in that scenario is lower.

What Does This All Mean For You, The Real Estate Professional?
All of you have no doubt found that having the “answer” when potential purchasers or owners question you about liability can only enhance your standing with that individual. LLC’s are a perfect vehicle for that customer of yours who owns multiple income properties. By placing each entity in a separate LLC, the customer can limit exposure to unforeseen events. A horrific fire or other casualty may wipe out the person’s equity in the location involved. If other entities have the shield of separate LLC’s, they should not be in any way affected.

LLC’s may also be something you as an agency owner or individual real estate proprietor may want to consider. These are question to present to your individual counsel or tax advisor, but there may be advantages for you in looking into an LLC as a form of operating.

Nuestra Raices on City Farmer, Holyoke, Massachusets, USA

Une preuve supplémentaire de la crise : les policiers de la petite ville américaine de Melrose, Massachusets, ont du se résoudre à commercialiser les flancs de leurs autos pour en assurer les révisions (on connait la qualité des voitures américaines…). Cette initiative devrait tout de même leur rapporter 72 000$ par an.

Entre l’épicier du coin et le salon de coiffure, nul doute que cette nouvelle catégorie d’hommes-sandwichs risque de trouver son public. Une présence bienveillante, un statut protecteur et la faculté de dialoguer… Le 2.0 peut aller se rhabiller…

Via AdLab

Light-Snow (photo by cca)

Although 2009 has begun vastly better than 2008, it still has not afforded me any time to write.  I have a couple of interesting posts on deck.  Lets hope that the baseball metaphor is not an omen of when I will get to posting some thoughts.  For now, I hope you enjoy my favorite image of this winter, thus far.

Yes, add South Carolina to the list of potential states that have considered trashing their state income tax. Making South Carolina more attractive to new businesses, helping S.C. retain its businesses, and putting distance between it and its competitors, are among the reasons author Joe Taylor cites in his article (READ IT) about doing away with South Carolina’s income tax.

For Missouri, getting to the top of the business latter among its surrounding states like South Carolina is attempting to do, is not the goal. Missouri needs to start from the ground up, getting rid of income taxes and earnings taxes, increasing marketability for Missouri in order for businesses to come, increasing job growth and population growth in major cities. Each state will inevitaby have its own distinct reasons for wishing to abolish its income taxes, but the main idea is that income taxes take money and jobs away from the people, mainly by giving major businesses few incentives to come or even stick around once they come.

OTHER STATES INTERESTED IN REMOVING THEIR STATE INCOME TAX…

• Louisiana
• Massachusetts
• Virginia

An interesting conversation I had recently has lead me to wonder why so many people oppose the idea of expanding the “definition of marriage” to include homosexual unions. In this article I’d like to explore the history of marriage and the probable effects of a legal decision that would allow gay couples to marry alongside straight couples. This article aims to speak from a logical angle on a very emotional issue – one that is more about love, in my opinion, than anything else.

MARRIAGE THROUGHOUT HISTORY

Believe it or not marriage- the religious and legal union – as we know it today has not always looked quite like it does. Proponents of “traditional” marriage are really defending contemporary marriage, what the institution has become within the last hundred or so years.

Marriage began most likely because most ancient societies needed a secure environment to ensure that the species continued to procreate; basically they needed a system of rules to handle the granting of property rights and the protection of bloodlines. Romantic, isn’t it? In order to meet these specific needs the institution took on some interesting rules for instance, did you know that ancient Hebrew laws required a man to become the husband of a deceased brother’s widow? The first marriages took place before the religions we practice today were in effect, essentially marriage was defined long before man defined it in “God’s words”. This knowledge makes the idea that marriage itself is an inherently religious institution rather difficult to believe; religion may have laid a claim on marriage somewhere down the line but it began as, and remains, a social and legal institution as well.

The truth is that the history of marriage is not as clear cut and unchanging as many choose to believe, in fact it would take days for me to sift through all of the information available on marriage through history and throughout cultures. There is no one traditional definition of the word marriage – want proof? Mormon tradition allows polygamy; many traditions in many countries made (or still make) women into their husband’s possessions; American tradition did not allow interracial marriages until 1967. In ancient Greece a woman whose father died without male heirs could be forced to marry her nearest male relative—even if she already had a husband – because marriage was just about property. Many societies believed or still believe in arranged marriages between partners who may not even meet until their wedding day! [Source]

Marriage is, obviously, a changing institution that takes on different meanings through the lenses of differing times, religions, societies, people… already there is no one definition of marriage! So why are we defending our definition of marriage so vehemently? Why can’t marriage simply be a union between two consenting adults who want to join themselves in a life together? If this is the case then straight marriage will still be legal, still be accepted by religions and laws. The only thing that changes? The law will finally recognize gay couples, just as they did interracial couples in 1967, as legitimate relationships deserving of all the legal benefits of marriage. Changing the legal definition of marriage does nothing to effect the religious definitions (different for every religion) because only the religious leaders can change that definition.

THE ARGUMENTS AGAINST

The divorce rate will get higher is one of the opposition’s least offensive, and therefore most often used, arguments. But, is there any truth to it? Not a shred…

[During] the first two years of legal same sex marriage in the Bay State, Massachusetts showed a more rapid decline [in divorce rate] and will very likely hold on to its title as the US state with the lowest divorce rate in the nation. The field is hotly contested — divorce rates have fallen dramatically in the last few decades.

Among those US states that have no laws on the books specifically prohibiting same sex marriage or civil unions — WY, NM, NY, MA, RI, CT, NJ, MD, VT — the average divorce rate drop ( unadjusted for population changes ) was -8.74%. No states in this group had divorce rate increases in 2004 and 2005.

Same-sex marriage became available in Canada in 2003-JUN. But it was not until 2004-SEP-14 that Justice Ruth Mesbur of the Ontario Superior Court issued the first divorce to a married same-sex couple in Canada. The second same-sex divorce was granted in British Columbia in 2005-JUN. In the meantime, thousands of couples had married.

My church will be forced to perform gay marriages/ schools will teach my children that being gay is normal. Quite simply, this is not true. The facts remain clear that:

This is absolutely not the case.  This is one of those places where Church and State are still separated.  For example, under Catholic doctrine, if a Catholic person wants to marry someone outside the faith, they cannot get married inside a Catholic church.  The couple can still get married in the eyes of the law, but the religion does not need to perform the ceremony or recognize it.

Allowing same-sex marriages will simply lead to moral breakdown – people marrying animals, or minors, or polygamy… Once again, no.

Allowing same-sex marriage will only do just that, allow gay couples to marry. Gay couples consist of two consenting adults in a completely legal relationship, therefore allowing them to marry could not set a precedent for behaviors like bestiality or child molestation, since these behaviors are quite obviously illegal and immoral. To say that legally acknowledging the healthy love between two people in a society could do anything but create more love and goodness is utterly ridiculous and I defy anyone to show me an example of a situation where legalizing gay marriage has lead to moral breakdown. No, really, look at Canada, look at Belgium, look at Massachusetts or Connecticut or any of the places that have legalized gay marriage… I promise you none of them have legally married a man and their dog or a child to her brother.

Let’s keep this about this issue at hand: gay marriage, and nothing else. Just as in the ’60s we focused on interracial marriage – even when the opponents of those unions tried to use the same scare tactics mentioned above to fight it.

This article from Plymouth Church beautifully dispels some of the myths above as well as ones I didn’t get to, and this page from All or Not At All provides another great Myth-busting resource!

BUT WHY MARRIAGE?

Why marriage? Why not just choose another word, like Civil Union, and give that word the same legal rights? That way, you know, we can have equality but we can still be… separate. Why not Civil Union?

My problem with the term Civil Union, or any term that is not marriage is simply this: it’s different. By giving a different word to the legal rights attached with a union between these couples you are, in a sense, saying that they are different from you. You are making them foreign. In my mind what it boils down to is simple: every couple is different, but love is always the same, pure, beautiful, illuminating entity. Marriage, ideally, is the institution that can unite all of these different, loving relationships into one group. Separating love into two types; marriage and civil union; straight and gay; only helps to perpetuate the animosity and discomfort that exists between these two groups.

I have always maintained the belief that you cannot fight hate without first embracing love. Not allowing gay marriage, or allowing the legal rights without the title, is giving in to the hate. If homosexual couples were allowed the same rights, the same name, the same respect as heterosexual couples under the law then the hatred would lose some power. No longer would homophobic people be able to hide behind restrictive laws to justify their hatred. Just as integration proved a tumultuous and dangerous, yet important part of the Civil Rights movement

The people I conversed with advocated Civil Unions as a way to allow homosexual couples their rights, while still maintaining their own unique identity as a straight married couple. People who hold this belief seem to value the clear distinction of a them and an us above all else. I say it’s time to value love above all else. Its time we, as straight members of society, stop wanting to be distinct from homosexual couples; after all why should it matter that someone knows from the moment they see your wedding ring that you are in a straight relationship? Why do we want people to assume we’re straight, rather than having to get to know us to find that out? If we tear down these semantic separations we leave room to discover just how similar we ALL are in love and in life.

HOW IT AFFECTS US ALL

If you don’t believe in gay marriage, and gay marriage is legally recognized, then nothing changes for your life. Homosexual couples get the rights they deserve as human beings and you, well you don’t have to marry someone of the same sex if you don’t want – you can marry WHOEVER you choose, just like you always could. Even after gay marriage is legally recognized in the United States (and trust me, it will be one day) the straight people who stood in opposition to this movement will simply go on living their lives – never knowing what its like to have their relationship, their love attacked and invalidated by hate filled individuals.

By legally recognizing homosexual unions as marriages we will be knocking down a major barrier that stands between humanity and true tolerance. Yes, at first, there will be many who felt threatened or offended by this action but, isn’t that true of all civil rights debates? Just as there  have been people who opposed interracial marriage; women voting; or desegregation, there will be many people against this… at first. However, laws play a large part in shaping public opinion; eventually that highly opposed law will stand the test of time, and people’s beliefs will change to recognize the fact that this law is moral and just. It worked with interacial marriages and segregation, although there are still some dissenters they are now the hateful minority rather than the hateful majority.

The point of all this? Tolerance breeds tolerance. If the legal entities in the United States can stand up to the people who, polluted with hate, try to stand between two people and their right to marry and love; if we can stand up and legalize gay marriage then we are committing an act of tolerance. Its time to stand up, to confront prejudice both in ourself and others, so that we can allow love to be recognized, encouraged, and cultivated.

Mike Sullivan Reports