This message was self-deleted by its author

[MineralMan]

This message was self-deleted by its author (MineralMan) on Thu Jun 27, 2013, 07:52 AM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

[Shrike47]

1. I wonder how Big Boy signed the application?

[Gregorian]

2. It must have been a real stain.

[leveymg]

3. Cindy and Big Boy already have a child together. Here (s)he is:

"Feed me!"

[JohnnyLib2]

4. That's about how the talk show in Louisville went this morning.

[The Straight Story]

5. I am gonna marry my other personality, the sex will be awesome

[JustFiveMoreMinutes]

6. She was the last one to 'ketchup' with the bandwagon. n/t

[randome]

7. It was a 'shotgun marriage'. The father was quite insistent.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font]
[hr]

[yardwork]

8. Mocking gay people is funny?

This is really low. I know that you are aware that this is what the anti-gay bigots say will happen.

Wow.

[Hekate]

13. You are missing the point by a mile. The mockery is aimed at those who think...

... that allowing gay marriage will inevitably lead to interspecies weddings.

[yardwork]

15. That isn't obvious to me.

This looks like the mockery itself.

[Hekate]

16. It's hard to keep up with RW sexual obsessions, so here's some links

You can't make this stuff up: Right Wing Nuttery just writes the parody itself. Enjoy.

http://mediamatters.org/research/2009/05/12/oreillys-ark-gay-marriage-could-lead-to-goat-du/150069
Bill O'Reilly again theorized that the legalization of gay marriage could lead to interspecies marriages, stating to Margaret Hoover, "[Y]ou would let everybody get married who want to get married. You want to marry a turtle, you can." O'Reilly has previously suggested that gay marriage could ultimately allow for a person to marry a goat, duck, or dolphin. July 3, 2012

http://www.burntorangereport.com/mt/archives/001855.html
Occationally, you have to give Andrew Sullivan a little credit. He found this gem about our Junior Senator in Texas:

"It does not affect your daily life very much if your neighbor marries a box turtle. But that does not mean it is right. . . . Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife."
-- Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.), advocating a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage in a speech Thursday to the Heritage Foundation.

That's right. In 2004, it's men marrying men and women marrying women. In ten years, it'll be men marrying goldfish and women marrying box turtles. Really, can anyone take these nuts seriously?

Update: As noted in comments, Cornyn did not use the "box turtle" line in his speech, although it was in the prepared remarks.

Posted by Byron LaMasters at July 13, 2004

[yardwork]

19. I'm well aware of all these. I am gay.

This thread is neither amusing nor illuminating.

[Puglover]

54. You know I have to smile when a straight person tells

me (when I take issue with a (joke???) about gay people that I am "missing the point by a mile". Assuming you are straight Hekate you really don't or can't understand what today means to us. So yeah perhaps this might be a parody on wingnuts idea of what might happen. Today is a day of joy for some of us. And I (and I think others) do not need to see the filth that wingnuts are trying to peddle. Joking or otherwise.
Make any sense at all?

[Hekate]

80. I just came back from a rally at the County Courthouse

I wanted to be with my friends in the social justice movement at this joyful occasion. This town being what it is, we had a bunch of clergy standing up for love, we had our politicians and/or their representatives, and a whole lot of the old gang, just familiar old faces and a lot of new ones from all the things I've ever been involved in over the past 30 years.

And no one -- not one blessed soul -- said the kinds of sour, unkind, angry bilge that flooded DU this morning.

As for MinMan -- I don't follow him from thread to thread. I just "know" him from GD at DU over the years. My impression is that he is not one who is given to deliberately unkind remarks, and therefore I took his OP as a joke aimed at the right wing nutjobs that infest our political sphere. Not at you. Not at my friends.

Hekate

[pipi_k]

89. Agree...

I don't follow him around, either. At least, not at the same obsessive level some here demonstrate.

When I do read his threads or posts, all I see at least 90% of the time is nastiness being dumped on him by people who just can't seem to forgive or forget what he did...or was...in the past.

I have never seen him deliberately try to hurt someone...in stark contrast to the large number of DUers who write some pretty awful things to him.

It's nasty and it's obsessive, and it honestly makes me cringe in sympathy for MM, who came clean about his activities elsewhere and is repeatedly abused for it.

[sabrina 1]

104. Then you don't know him. This thread is insulting. There is good reason for people to

feel that coming from this OP especially, it is extremely offensive.

[Puglover]

114. I am afraid we disagree.

I really don't know what "sour angry bilge" you are referring to unless it's within this thread.

Frankly a rally at the county courthouse is a vastly different venue then a discussion board on the internet.

I wonder how it would have gone over had someone stepped to the podium and told this "joke".

I don't follow MM anywhere trust me. However this thread was somewhat hard to miss.

[GReedDiamond]

56. Hey Billo...Elaine Chao already married a turtle...

...way back in '93. His name is "Mitch."

[pipi_k]

49. I dunno...

What can I say but that it was pretty obvious to me also that the mockery is directed toward those mental defectives who actually believe that gay marriage will lead to all sorts of crazy things.

[boston bean]

42. There is no satire aimed at the bigots. No point was made about them.

All it was, was regurgitated rw bigot speech, that they use in an attempt to justify their bigotry.

Where is the satire directed at the bigots in this OP?

[Hekate]

90. See my response to Puglover above

[MineralMan]

17. And the anti-gay morons are

wh I am mocking. See the link to the DFL precinct webite in my sinnature line. I wrote it.

[yardwork]

20. Yeah right

[boston bean]

36. I don't believe it either. nt

[yardwork]

66. Hey there! How you doing?

Re: This OP. Now I'm not saying "narcissistic personality disorder" but....

[boston bean]

107. Hey-o!

Good to see you!

[MADem]

81. You need to remove this offensive OP. If you think you're "mocking," that's not how it is coming

across.

Is that a clear enough, sufficiently declarative statement?

[Warren Stupidity]

22. yeah I thought this op was sort of off too.

I wasnt going to post anything because it is just too easy to deny it and claim that the satire is cutting the other way, I just wonder about the thought process that goes into posting the op today.

Glad you brought it up.

[yardwork]

24. Nothing but an excuse to mock and ridicule, and lots of responders to the thread are doing the same.

Fruit salad and PeeWee Herman?! Oh, I get it, PeeWee Herman is a fruit! Get it? Hilarious.

[boston bean]

34. Freeper troll. This op seals the deal, in my mind.

[suffragette]

58. That's how this strikes me as well, yardwork.

And today of all days.

[csziggy]

9. It's all fun and games until the shower scene

[Starry Messenger]

10. This seems in line with what they are saying at FR.

Not getting the satire aspect, which usually contains irony.

[Zorra]

14. +1

[Spirochete]

11. You say tomato, I say tomahto

lets call the whole thing ... ridiculous

[DURHAM D]

12. Did you pick this up at your home website?

[The Link]

18. I suspect the reasoning behind you posting this.

Just sayin'.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

21. Is public pollination a crime in MA?

[TheMadMonk]

93. Looks pretty racy.

[johnp3907]

23. I'm just so happy for Pee Wee and the fruit salad.

[Heddi]

25. You post this bigoted tripe today, the day that GBLT Americans have been waiting for

You post a link to a "satirical" story (that is not satirical at all) that basically affirms the beliefs that so many right wingers have that Woman + Woman in marriage, or Man + Man in marriage = Woman + Tomato in marriage, or Man + Dog in marriage.

This isn't funny. It's not satirical.

It's offensive.

But we've come to expect no less from you.

Pick this up from an old pal at Free Republic? Remember FR? You posted there for so many years. And made some pretty horrible posts about gays and lesbians.

But you were just fooling then, right? Just trying to pull the wool.....

this post is sickening, and part of me hopes you have the self decency to delete it, and the other half hopes you don't, so that everyone can be REMINDED (not shown...reminded) of your history of loathing towards GBLT'ers.

[yardwork]

29. Thanks Heddi

[NealK]

32. +1 n/t

[leftstreet]

40. +1

[Bluenorthwest]

41. To be fair, at FR he also called black Obama voters 'stereotypes' and

'caricatures'. So it was not JUST gays and lesbians, he also did the Deen with gusto.

[NealK]

59. So he's a racist too?

[morningfog]

51. His mask slipped, as it is known to from time to time.

[Apophis]

70. + infinity

[kestrel91316]

26. I'm going to marry either a cucumber or a banana.

[MADem]

27. I can predict that this is going to end badly.

What in the world possessed you to drag this nasty shit in here?

It's offensive, and the kind of thing that only wingnut sites would yuck about. All you need is a line or two about how an "activist" Supreme Court justice (pick the one you love to hate) performed the ceremony and you'd be in hatemongering clover.

There's no "satire smiley" going on here. This is a big fail, major poor taste, and even worse judgment.

This is just below the standards for this discussion board.

[yardwork]

28. Thank you.

[MADem]

30. I'm stunned that this is still up--it deserves a six to zip hide.

And today, of all days.

This is an insult to not just a key demographic of our population, but to all Americans. And it is doubly offensive because it uses MY state, Massachusetts, which was a leader in the equality effort, to make the "joke."

It's just not funny. It's mean. It's insidious, like a shiv between the ribs. It's wrong, it's phobic, it's like that Texas "marrying the box turtle" nonsense that the guys who pick their noses with their six shooters get a kick out of.

The OP really needs to do a serious gut check and then take a course correction, after deleting this piece of shit. If I were him, I'd be beyond ashamed.

[boston bean]

43. The author is "iwud wudunchu"

I assume that means, I would, wouldn't you...

WTH does he mean by that?

[MADem]

77. The author could be Foo Kyn Azzole, for all I care!!!

The person posting this garbage has some "man in the mirror" stuff to do. He's either just not getting the sheer offensiveness, or he's "having a laugh," to quote a Ricky Gervais in EXTRAS catch-phrase.

Either way, he's gotten enough feedback -- he needs to shut this shit down.


IMO, anyway...

[Starry Messenger]

45. +++

[NealK]

31. How dare you post crap like this?

I was in a great mood until I read that. You make me sick.

[AgingAmerican]

33. Is the tomato a "consenting adult"?

nt

[Little Star]

35. I can not believe you posted this. Shame on you it's not funny.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

96. It's classic MM garbage...

and doesn't surprise me in the least.

A while back he offered up a trademark lecture on hit-and-run posters and "controversial" topics, yet he's absent from this thread. I'm surprised he hasn't offered up a trademark passive-aggressive explanation as to why. I'd do a search for the thread, but life is too short. And it might have been in Meta, anyway.

There has to be something seriously lacking in one's life to post a shit OP like this to a Democratic board, on what is truly a joyous day. Satire, my ass. He has some people on this board fooled, but the majority? No.

[MNBrewer]

37. I thought marriage was all about the baby's right to a mommy and a daddy.

How is THAT going to work?

[UtahLib]

38. Insulting, shameful and cringe worthy OP. n/t

[Bluenorthwest]

39. According to the OP's earlier confessions on DU, he was authoring anti gay propaganda

for right wing web sites during the 2004 campaign and later. During that election my new State of Oregon passed an amendment against marriage equality that is a barrier today. I fought that amendment, the OP was typing up hateful lies about gay people being untrustworthy around children. Because of this history, it is difficult to accept this is offered in parody and impossible to think that any decent person would feel it was their place to attempt such parody after so many years as an active libel merchant and full tilt liar opposing gay rights of all kinds all over the internet.
These are just the facts, all admitted on DU by the OP himself.

[The Link]

46. This does not feel like light-hearted satire.

[Bluenorthwest]

57. It's not. It is the OP's way of showing disrespect to Skinner first and foremost then to

LGBT people.

[NealK]

53. Well that explains a lot.

Why is this homophobic right winger allowed to be a member of a progressive site?

[RandiFan1290]

106. He donates $$$$

A lot of rw trolls are allowed to stay and attack liberals and DUers as long as they DONATE!!


$

[pipi_k]

65. Irony...

So when people post here about trying to change the minds and attitudes of RWers, that's all just a bunch of bullshit?

Because really the general attitude seems to be, "once a RWer, always a RWer", and people who call themselves "liberals" (who, one supposes, are supposed to be tolerant) will keep throwing a person's past at him over and over again.

Honestly, it's no wonder RWers stick so resolutely to their beliefs. They're damned if they do and damned if they don't. If they're RWers they suck. If they turn the other way they have their noses rubbed in their own shit time after time

One big lesson here is clear...honesty...as in revealing one's past is not always the best policy when so many people are so eager to use it against someone

[Vinnie From Indy]

68. Are we allowed to make judgments based on current

posts?

[pipi_k]

78. See, here's the problem...

people aren't really making judgements based on current posts.

They are making judgements based on his past history.

I suspect that if a more popular DUer had posted this, even those who didn't find it particularly amusing would not be expressing the same level of vitriol as what's been spewed out in this thread.

I think many people would actually try and give the OP a chance to explain...I think many people would not reply in such a knee-jerk fashion.

One thing I would like to see here...which I realize is impossible, but I think it would be interesting...would be for someone to be able to choose anonymity for, oh, 12 to 24 hours.

Wouldn't it be a huge surprise for some to jump down someone's throat for something only to find out later it was one of that person's "buddies".

I see too many people here rushing to judgement based on who made the post...not on any attempt to actually read and understand it, even if one does not agree with it.

[MADem]

94. I sure as hell am.

Please read my comments in post 91 ( here is a link so it's easy to find - http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023105108#post91 - )

I felt a bit "underdog defensive" about this particular poster, owing to his age and what I supposed was his evolution in his viewpoints. I read his old "Free Republic" confessions, and I read the mean shit people wrote about him, and I felt sorry for him for taking so much shit for being truthful. See, I do believe people can change.

But I read this OP, not even noticing who posted it, and I was offended. When I realized who the poster was, I felt like an ass who had been tricked into supporting a jerk.

I don't think this is satire, really. I think it's hate speech and I don't understand why a jury didn't hide it.

[NealK]

97. +1 n/t

[Warren Stupidity]

111. No really there was a timeline for me with this post that went like this:

1. who the fuck posted this fucked up piece of shit here today of all days?
2. oh it is mm. wow. what a coincidence.

In case that isn't clear: first it was a fucked up post, then it was a question of the posters history.

[geek tragedy]

44. Please self-delete. nt

[Puglover]

48. We agree.

It would be so easy to simply say "Whoops, bad joke." If you don't MM I have to wonder if your ego is more important then doing the right thing.

[rug]

47. This would be stupid any day.

It is monumentally stupid today.

[Warren Stupidity]

72. +1

[cthulu2016]

50. I "get it" but it isn't funny

[Mr. David]

52. Maybe I should register newsyouwouldntbelieve.com and get traffic... and 100% of the revenues goes

to a good cause, no?

[morningfog]

55. So, did you write this? Original work?

You must be so proud. Zebras can't change stripes, huh?

[roamer65]

60. Dry humor.

It makes fun of the people like Senator "box turtle" Cornyn.

These people like him are to be mocked and made fun of, as the mental midgets they truly are.

[yardwork]

69. The only people being mocked and made fun of in this thread are gay people.

Both the OP and every single supportive response mocks and makes fun of gay people. That's not dry humor. That's the kind of humor that George W. Bush likes.

[Prism]

61. Tombstone worthy, IMO

[Kingofalldems]

62. Reads like something on Free Republic

Oh. Now I remember.

[Vinnie From Indy]

63. WTF?

This OP is bullshit!

[madinmaryland]

64. I suppose Rick Santorum will be proposing to a dog, shortly.

[Zorra]

67. I alerted on this OP; here are the results:

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your alert

Mail Message
At Wed Jun 26, 2013, 06:54 PM you sent an alert on the following post:

MA Woman and Tomato Plant Apply for Marriage License
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023105108

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

YOUR COMMENTS:

This post is not satire. This poster is deliberately insulting the LGBT community with this poorly written satire, because he is apparently upset that DOMA was ruled unconstitutional. This poster was once an anti-gay member of freerepublic who even posted on freerepublic that "Gays Can't Be Trusted With Children" Here is a DU thread discussing this issue:

http://www.democraticunderground.com
/?com=view_post&forum=1137&pid=10794

JURY RESULTS

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Wed Jun 26, 2013, 07:02 PM, and voted 2-4 to LEAVE IT ALONE.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT and said: As "satire" it's really pretty pitiful. Add to that the knowledge of this poster's history, and I'm not charitably inclined.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said:

It reads as satire to me. I suggest you get over it. Seriously.


Leave it.


Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: It was presented and accepted as satire. Enough with the fucking vendettas already. Today is a great day for the LGBT community - enjoy it.

Thank you.
------------------------------------
My apologies to all those concerned are both present and forthcoming, both public and private.

[Warren Stupidity]

71. the demise of meta has made it difficult to address the crap that goes on here

I understand the motivation to shut meta down, but AA is not really an alternative. Instead "meta" now happens in thread. Oh well.

[yardwork]

75. Does this thread meet the SOP for GD? You are a GD host, right?

[MADem]

91. I wouldn't game the system that way; satire has been allowed in GD.

We don't want the hosts making 'value' judgments--because there could come a day when a preponderance of hosts have values that are antithetical to yours or mine. They need to do their job,and ONLY their job, and stick to the SOP.

That said, I do think this post needs to go. This is hateful satire, and it needs to be hidden, but I think a better way of handling it is to take the case to the admins. If it's not gone by tomorrow, I'll send a DUmail to the admins asking "WTF" and I'd urge others to do the same.

This is just shitty. In the past I've given this poster the benefit of the doubt, and felt that people shouldn't pile on about his Free Republic past, or keep bringing it up, because I do believe that people have capacity for change and growth, and they can learn the error of their ways. That said, now I am feeling like a "soft touch," a sucker, a rube, because this OP smacks of "too clever by half." The unwillingness of the poster to acknowledge that people are perturbed by this is what is especially troubling.

[yardwork]

98. I certainly was not suggesting gaming the system

I don't think that this thread is satire. How does it meet the SOP for GD? What is the OP discussing?

[MADem]

101. Well, he's obviously referencing a current event, the SC decision.

His little :satiresmiley: notation at the end of his post indicates he's trying to pass it off as satire.

Current events are "OK" in GD, and satire has also been allowed -- often --in this forum.

I just don't think there's sufficient "there" there for the hosts to push this out the door. This IS a community standards issue, though, which is why we need to take it to the court of appeals.

I know Skinner doesn't ordinarily involve himself in removing stuff, but he's done it at least once that I remember. Sometimes, it's the right thing to do.

This OP is like a red flag before the bull, IMO. I don't see any "satire" or teasing that would inflame the right wing. I can see wingnuts snickering and enjoying this, though, in an "I toldja so" way.

[Warren Stupidity]

110. yes it does. and even if it didn't at this point i would not vote on its status.

[Zorra]

82. Gotta do what you gotta do; if there are consequences for

honesty and transparency, well, as lame as I may be, I can still least at try to be better than the NSA.

Do you know any sauces, seasonings, or strong alcoholic beverages that might make my 20+ course meal of stone cold crow go down better?

[MADem]

84. Nothing wrong with "meta-ing" within the thread. The hosts only have charge over the first post in

the thread. Frankly, it's more honest than the passive-aggressive "Did you see what so-and-so said about such-n-such in this LINK (then the link is provided)?"

I say confront the bullshit head on; deal with the issue, plainly and clearly, and do it where the offense happened. That way there's no confusion.

I made my opinion on this OP clear throughout this thread. I find it offensive, I don't think it's "mocking" haters, it sounds, to my ear, like it is mocking the SC decision. I think it should be shut down, and the thread starter should dig deep, find some sensitivity, write a post apologizing for this stupid fucking OP, and then delete it. It's trash.

IMO.

YMMV.

[Warren Stupidity]

112. to be clear, the only thing wrong with in-thread meta is it is less effective.

A stand-alone discussion about this op in meta would have had a much wider audience, and that would have been a good thing and it would have perhaps raised "consciousness" (oh my 70's heritage is showing) with our community and what is appropriate and what isnt.

[pipi_k]

74. I wasn't

on the jury for this, but if I had been, my reply would have been much the same as Juror #6...

Lots of people do not like MM.

I've seen relatively innocuous OPs of his that have generated some nasty and hateful replies.

If MM is such a vile person to most of the people in this thread, why the hell don't they just put him on ignore?

Also...I agree...this truly was a great day for the LGBT community. Why not enjoy it?? I really would prefer NOT to think that people here are so fragile that a post on an internet discussion board is actually going to ruin their day:

"OMG I was having a good day until I read this!!!"

Please. I see this type of drama all the time from my pre-teen grandkids. It's discouraging to see it here...from "adults".

sigh...

[Zorra]

85. Oh. Are your kids LGBT? If so, with all due respect, I hope you relate to them and understand them,

better than you do this situation, because you apparently assume to know a great deal more about it than you ever possibly could.

[pipi_k]

92. My kids

aren't gay, but I do have family members who are.

I can say this with assurance, my dear...they have wonderful senses of humor.

I'm quite sure that they would see the actual point here...which is that this OP is meant to mock the mouth-breathers who fear that gay marriage will open up the doors to people marrying their pets, their cars, and yes...even tomatoes.

And if I were to explain to them the facts here...that people hold gut-rotting grudges against MM for his past, they would see even more. Because that, ultimately, is what lies beneath this drama.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out.

[Zorra]

95. Well, I was definitely, and provably not holding a grudge, and neither were several of the

posters disturbed by the OP, although I'm sure some were holding a grudge.

A rocket scientist could probably figure this out; but much of it is no longer researchable due to self deletions and the demise of meta.

I was really hoping your kids were LGBT, so that maybe they would explain how this OP might be offensive to many in the LGBT community.

Try your gay relatives, they will be able to explain it to you.

As will many straight folks here at DU as well.

[NealK]

83. What a surprise.

[Apophis]

73. You posted this on the wrong discussion forum.

I'm sure FR would appreciate this crap.

[Kurovski]

76. Why didn't Cynthia marry "Early Girl"?

Seems the correct way to go in this matter.

[EvilAL]

79. If I could marry a Kush marijuana plant

I definitely would. The honeymoon would last forever as we raised our clones and I ate a lot of cheetos.

[Starry Messenger]

86. I know from your past defenses of these "rubber crutch" posts of yours

That you seem to assume that we are too dumb to "get" your sophisticated wit and timing.

I want to offer heartfelt assurance that this is completely not true--these are just tone deaf and unfunny and offensive.

Gay rights are hardly a done deal and what other minority group would you find it amusing to use as your "material" in the face of decades of struggle to be recognized as humans? Going to do one on VRA next?

[LittleBlue]

87. If any gay people are reading

I do not think your marriage is the equivalent of marrying a tomato. Nor should it be joked about as such.

Sincerely, a straight guy.

[yardwork]

100. Thank you

There are a half dozen gay people commenting in this thread. We've all said that the OP is offensive and not funny. We've been ignored by the OP and insulted by others.

Not one of DU's finest moments.

[Bluenorthwest]

115. Please PM Skinner and tell him that. He supports this hate. Tell him to stop.

[AnnieBW]

88. She thought he was a Big Boy

But he was really just a cherry tomato!

[jmowreader]

99. I expect right wingers to try this for real

With all the interspecies marriage lies the right wingers have told since same-sex marriage started to be discussed, I expect this to actually happen...and lots of whining about how they can't marry who they want.

[MotherPetrie]

102. A new low even for you

[sabrina 1]

103. Yes, some things never change. But not at all unexpected.

[tkmorris]

105. Not remotely amusing

You never struck me as dumb enough to not understand how this would be taken. Therefore I can only conclude you knew exactly the reaction you'd get here. In that case I have to wonder what your purpose was in posting this.

[Son of Gob]

108. Dumbass

[GeorgeGist]

109. Freeper madness.

[The Link]

113. I would have expected you to take this ugly shit down given the reaction.

[MineralMan]

116. I'm self-deleting this.

It was intended as a satire making fun of anti-marriage equality efforts. It was misunderstood by some, and so I'm self-deleting, since my post was not taken in the way I intended, due to my own lack of skills at satire.

I apologize for not making myself clear. If you click the DFL precinct link in my signature line, you'll see that I have been an active supporter of marriage equality. I am the chair of my precinct organization and what is written on that site is mine.