Slashdot Mirror
OKCupid Warns Off Mozilla Firefox Users Over Gay Rights
PortWineBoy writes: "The Beeb is reporting that OkCupid is prompting Mozilla Firefox users to switch browsers over Brendan Eich's support of Prop 8 in California in 2008. Users are met with a message stating that OKCupid would prefer no one access their site with Mozilla software. Eich is the new CEO of Mozilla."
Yes. I went there.
I look forward to the 2nd or April
But making a stand against someone because of their religious beliefs seems petty... and I'm an Athiest...
what happened to live and let live?
And Facebook didn't make the Oculus Rift, Apple didn't create AAC, etc.
Haters gotta hate.
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
OK Cupid is in the process of getting rid of all Javascript on the site, since Brendan Eich was the creator of that too. All interactive content will be replaced with the more LGBT-friendly Adobe Flash.
I'm fully in support of gay marriage, and have been to a few same-sex ceremonies for friends.
But in no way do I support the demonization or boycott of people just because they have a different opinion of something than I do. To me that's a for of bigotry itself, and why would I want to be bigoted?
I'm pretty sure that there are almost no two people on earth who have the same opinion on every single subject. If we go down this road of shunning those who think differently, we all wind up as islands - and not the fun kind with umbrellas in in drinks, for we will have shunned all of the umbrella makers...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Want to get unpaid product placement on BBC? Boycott Mozilla! I suppose that not watching Ender's Game is already not enough.
News for tomorrow: Kazakhstan Airlines cancel flights to Vatican quoting lack of official support for gay priests from the Pope.
Stop using JavaScript
That's a good idea in general, considering its history of problems.
Maybe what we need is a push to persuade browser makers to link to perl and python implementations. Those are both much better languages for the purposes that JS was invented, and they're both completely open-source.
Actually, the right way to do it would be to replace all the embedded browsers' languages with tools for communicating efficiently with an arbitrary language plugin. Then we could use any programming language we like, including languages that haven't been developed yet. But what are the chances that we could persuade all the major browser makers to implement something as (conceptually ;-) simple as that?
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
So we're politicizing browser selection now? This amounts to dragging end users into a political dispute that they have nothing to do with. Is this really a road we want to go down? How long before people start blocking IE because they don't like Microsoft's business tactics, or before Apple starts blocking Google Chrome users with a message complaining about alleged patent infringement?
Once this Pandora's box is open, it will be impossible to close. This time it may be aimed at Brendan Eich for the heinous crime of holding onto outdated views of gay marriage a whole two years longer than President Obama, but next time it could be anyone.
There's an important point that I think is often lost in these discussions. Orthodox Christian theology maintains several points: (1) Homosexuality is a sin, (2) unrepentant sin goes hand-in-hand with alienation from God, and (3) alienation from God leads to both unhappiness in this present life and a missed opportunity for happiness after death.
Based on that set of axioms, it can be completely loving to encourage someone to repent of his sins and choose to follow Jesus. Practicing homosexuality is a sign that someone isn't doing that. It would therefore be unloving or even hateful to affirm homosexual relations.
Now I'm sure 90% of the Slashdot crowd disagrees with those axioms. And it's certainly the case that a person can proclaim to be Christian but actually hate gay people. But there are some Christians for whom that's not the case, and I don't think any of us knows Mozilla's CEO well enough to guess in which group he sits.
So it'd be alright if Firefox plastered over every page of sites that didn't support prop8 that they were supporting immoral and disgusting behavior? We have the right to free thought and expression in this country, even if you don't like it.
If the torch & pitchfork crowds are going after this dude now because he supported CA Prop 8, shouldn't they also call for a boycott of the state of California? You know, since a majority of their voters voted for the infamous Proposition 8 and passed it. I would say that voting for it counts as supporting it, right?
Fuck off and die.
This whole internet activism bullshit has gotten out of hand. Hey, stop using JavaScript if you want to put your money where your mouth is.
Not using Firefox will change nothing.
KONY2014
Not April's day joke. But a little bit misrepresentation. Prop 8. was about recognition of marriage by the state of California, it was not about whether or not same-sex marriage is legal or illegal. I wouldn't go so far as to say that Eich wants gay-couples to be outlawed.
From https://www.okcupid.com/
Hello there, Mozilla Firefox user. Pardon this interruption of your OkCupid experience.
Mozilla’s new CEO, Brendan Eich, is an opponent of equal rights for gay couples. We would therefore prefer that our users not use Mozilla software to access OkCupid.
Politics is normally not the business of a website, and we all know there’s a lot more wrong with the world than misguided CEOs. So you might wonder why we’re asserting ourselves today. This is why: we’ve devoted the last ten years to bringing people—all people—together. If individuals like Mr. Eich had their way, then roughly 8% of the relationships we’ve worked so hard to bring about would be illegal. Equality for gay relationships is personally important to many of us here at OkCupid. But it’s professionally important to the entire company. OkCupid is for creating love. Those who seek to deny love and instead enforce misery, shame, and frustration are our enemies, and we wish them nothing but failure.
If you want to keep using Firefox, the link at the bottom will take you through to the site.
However, we urge you to consider different software for accessing OkCupid:
Google Chrome Internet Exploder Opera
http://www.mueller-public.de - My site http://www.anr-institute.com/ - Advanced Natural Research Institute
Because tolerance it's just tolerating any "thing." It's being against discrimination based on traits a person has no control over.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
What happened to live and let live?
It died. Moral Libertarianism isn't profitable enough to the folks who fund political campaigns.
It's funny how they are principled enough to boycott the company he is steering, but not principled enough to stop using the thing that he is credited with inventing.
lose != loose
If he opposed Prop 8 he would have been in support of gay marriage, not opposed to it. Prop 8 was a California constitutional amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman. I assume he was in support of Prop 8 and not opposed to it as indicated in the summary.
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
Google at last count provides 90% of Mozilla's revenue - http://thenextweb.com/insider/...
Boycott Firefox AND Chrome! Long live Lynx!
.
Prisencolinensinainciusol. Ol Rait!
People's attitudes on this are extremely hypocritical. We rail against hatred and discrimination, and yet here we are with a "BURN THE HEATHENS!" mob mentality the second we find out about someone donating a relatively measly $1000 to Prop8. With the way some people are acting, you would think we just discovered that the guy was a raging pedophile. Did he really give out anywhere near the amount of damage that he and Mozilla are now receiving? Is this how we win the battle against discrimination? By replacing one form of irrational hatred and bias with another? We may view it as poetic justice, but it's hypocrisy; plain and simple. People love to hate. The only thing that ever changes is who the current easy target is. Plenty of CEOs are vile, unscrupulous pigs who cheat on their wives and sexually harass female employees, but you won't see this sort of backlash against them because it isn't the current political hot topic.
From now on, I shall only surf OkCupid using LOIC.
If OKCupid is really that against FF as a browser, block the useragent string. Then I'll believe they really want to take a stand.
Also, as the FF CEO also created Javascript, get rid of that on the site.
For once /. got it right.. (hand-shake)
I think and feel using tech to promote your views on life and werld around us in a negative manner is BS!!
or example, when clicking on the link, a sound byte came up, unsolicited.. Promoting someone'[s views.
While I agree that gay rights are IMPORTANT, I feel those whom feel strongly about this should be the ones to act. like the LGBT or something of that nature..
Not the owners of websites, whom may cater to this, but not have an opinion either way, and are looking for a business tactic.. I feel it de-value's the true intent and really helps us to understand how stupid, bitchy, and cowardly these business individuals are..
Moving past that, I truly think and feel OK cupid is wrong for forcing their agenda those whom do not necessarily agree..
If there was an option to allow display, etc then it would not be so bad.
But the forceful aspect is BS.
wouldn't it be funny if bevcause of this ignorace, stupidity, etc there was a major outbreak from a security perspective, credid card numbers, personal info leaked, etc all because some one hast to make the community use a less secure method of accessing their site because of their social beleifs.
This is just stupid, all together..
thanks for your time (stepping off soap box)
They'd be perfectly within their rights, just as OKCupid is. Or would you rather OKCupid refrain from expressing themselves on their own website, just because you don't like it? :)
I'm confused. Should I keep watching Duck Dynasty and Honey Boo Boo? Where should I eat? Is it ok to eat at Taco Bell and Subway still?
But making a stand against someone because they're gay seems petty...and I'm straight.
What happened to live and let live?
Two separate issues, I think.
From an orthodox Christian perspective, making a stand against homosexual conduct is making a stand for homosexual persons. To orthodox Christians, practicing homosexuality is sin, and unrepentant sin is a path towards eternal destruction. To be "pro homosexuality" would, for such Christians, be like being "pro all-you-can-eat buffet" for morbidly obese people. It's what they want, but (on the Christian view), it's directly contrary to their long-term well-being.
The "live-and-let-live" issue is quite separate. I don't think there's anything in classical Christian theology that requires Christians to pursue the legislation of Christian behavior.
Longtime Firefox user here and traditional family values supporter.
How many wives do you have and how many goat did you pay for each one?
...To Okay Stupid. This requested boycott is a cynical media troll that plays on people's lowest impulses. I doubt this gutter play buys Stupid Cupid much goodwill just some media attention. Besides, Eich has stated that he supports a diverse workplace. And a lot of people have evolved on this issue over the years.
"No fear. No envy. No meanness." Liam Clancy
This is very insightful, but let me correct.. it is NOT a sin to BE homosexual at all.. it is a sin to engage in homosexual acts - whether one is homosexual or not.
This is a very important issue, especially for the many gay people who believe and are Christian. and there are many.
If I based every software purchasing decision on whether or not the company CEO was a prick, I wouldn't have many products left to choose from. Even choosing an OS would be next to impossible. Apple would be out (Steve Jobs was a notorious asshole who parked in handicapped spaces and refused to give to charities). MS would be out (one word: Ballmer). Shit, even Linux would be out (ever seen one of Torvalds' infamous rants?). I guess I could use FreeBSD or OS2/Warp. But I'm sure someone would have some bone to pick about their creators/parent companies too.
I just don't have the time to vet every goddamned person over every goddamned thing. It would be one thing if Mozilla as a company were putting up big "We hate gays!" banners on their webpage or something. But I just can't bring myself to care that their CEO may be a prick as an individual. After all, most of them are.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
Because tolerance of intolerance is intolerance. I don't understand why you Republicans can't comprehend that. In other to be tolerant, you must be extremely intolerant of things that aren't tolerant.
Only if you have no belief whatsoever in the power of your own example and your own message. In that case, I suppose you would want to use some form of coercion.
But then, I question your true motives for believing what you believe. Is it to join the majority and avoid the shame and invective of being accused of intolerance? Or is it because you truly believe that tolerance is superior? If the latter, why not act like it's superior and let it stand on its own merits? Why not show everyone a shining, pure, hypocrisy-free example of what real tolerance is?
See, what many of you really want is is to issue righteous judgment against those who disagree with you. You think the fact that you are right excuses this desire. You still haven't performed the introspection and the difficult internal work of overcoming and transforming your own hatred. You think espousing the correct doctrine makes you superior, but you did not eliminate your own hatred at all. You merely found a socially acceptable way to channel it. This still fails to reduce the amount of hatred in the world. Hating evil does not make you good, no matter how desperately you want to feel self-righteous.
The failure to comprehend this is not because it is so difficult to understand. It's really simple, in fact. No, the failure to understand this is the same failing behind most of the vices that remain today: it raises too many difficult and uncomfortable questions concerning who you really are and why you believe what you believe. It's so much easier to find something external to yourself to hate. Isn't it?
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
But the page changed on April 1, right?
No. It changed on March 31. I think it is simply a marketing trick. Pretend to take a stand. Gets lots of buzz for free. Give the impression that you are still hip. Never mind that for the last year or two, Okcupid has been showing that they don't even care about their own user community. Function has been reduced drastically. Non-mainstream users have been marginalized. Forums are no longer monitored. The only communication that comes out is the occasional obvious lie. "We are working hard and making the site better for you!" (my removing all the features that you used and adding virtually nothing)
California is a State that recognizes that people have a legal right to participate in lawful activities outside of work without consequence to their job. I voted against Proposition 8 and I am disappointed in everyone who supported it, but people have a right to their private lives and their religious freedom.
If the company, Mozilla, were discriminating in any way against employees or customers because of their sexual orientation, then taking them to task would be appropriate and ethical. However, hounding a private citizen at work is not ethical. Imagine if someone read the blog post of a pro same-sex marriage activist and got 1000 of their Christian friends to bombard the activist's place of employment with thousands of phone calls and dozens of angry citizens trying to gain access to the premises and talk to the employer about their employee's "immoral" behavior.
It is not McCarthyism, but it is the same sort of attitude, ruin the professional lives of all your perceived political opponents. While only a tiny sliver of proposition 8 opponents engaged in this sort of behavior, it does nothing but a disservice to their cause. When conservative Christians talk about being persecuted by homosexuals for their beliefs, most people rightfully laugh in their face, but actions like this do lead an iota of credibility to their claims, and we all know that anecdotes of someone claiming to have been forced to quit their job because of harassment from "homosexual activists" speak a lot more convincingly to many people than the millions of proposition 8 supporters who were not harassed.
The bottom line is understanding the difference between tolerance and acceptance. I tolerate a lot of bad behavior and stupid ideas because I am a tolerant person. When you go to work or school, you are required by law (at least here in California) to tolerate the beliefs of your coworkers, those who believe that same-sex couples should wed and those who are religiously opposed to the idea. You do not have to accept their beliefs, just tolerate them and their rights to them.
Acceptance of same-sex marriages is something that should flow naturally out of tolerance, not something that activists should try to force on people. As it becomes legal in more States and acquires more popular support, those who do not accept it will tend to die off or change their mind. You are never going to get 100% acceptance and harassing people in their workplace for what they believe in their personal life is not doing the same sex marriage cause any justice or service.
Christians that hold that view need a STRONG lesson in civics then. Its fine they hold that view, but we are going to constantly remind them it is immoral to force their morality on the rest of us. This is exactly where the religious need to be reminded of what the limits of tolerance are.
Good-bye
Because the people who "preach tolerance" are advocating tolerance of things that don't hurt anybody.
You're gay? Cool, whatever. You want to create legislation that makes gay people into second-class citizens? You're an asshole.
I don't know why this is so hard to understand.
Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)
Meanwhile, that shitty site is getting a tonne of coverage on various sites. Yay for the champions of diversity.
They have good PR people, I'll give them that.
Christians that hold that view need a STRONG lesson in civics then. Its fine they hold that view, but we are going to constantly remind them it is immoral to force their morality on the rest of us. This is exactly where the religious need to be reminded of what the limits of tolerance are.
Unless you're a uniquely talented moral philosopher, you are unable to define "moral" in a way that all rational persons would accept. So I think you're just kicking the can down the road by saying that you plan to give Christians a lesson.
Real problems are among others lack of _good_ modularity support - abstraction and data hiding, single numeric datatype, global variables, "this" etc.
It is possible to hack around some problems but the language as such just sucks. IMHO - YMMV.
If I based every software purchasing decision on whether or not the company CEO was a prick...
Larry Ellison just felt a disturbance in the force.
So it makes you feel better that he used his own money to deny another person their rights? Wow....
It's been pointed out these people are holding the same position President Obama did until about a year or so ago.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Companies are made up of many, many people and some of them may have disagreeing opinions. And people are not the company.
OKCupid is only providing support for the idea an employer has a right to control their workers personal lives when they're off the clock, and being wage or salary has nothing to do with it, as folks here like to drag into the situation. Even if I'm a salaried worker I'm not "at work" 24/7. I have specific hours I'm doing my job, and hours I'm not. We are human beings and have our own opinions on issues, sometimes unpopular opinions. If you don't like the ideas of a single person you have an issue with the human, not the company. There's no reason to take any action against Mozilla just because you don't like their new CEO. Now, if his personal beliefs begin to shape corporate policy or find their way into product design, then you have an issue with Mozilla the company.
Jobs also bought a brand-new Ferrari every few months in order to exploit loopholes in CA law allowing new cars to be driven without registration tags.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
There's not a debate in which to engage. Under the U.S. Constitution, states must grant equal protection of law to all citizens. That implies making civil marriage available to same-sex couples. When a person can't do something because of the shape of their genitals or the pretense or absence of a Y chromosome, ipso facto that's not equal treatment.
If you (general you, not aimed at DoofusOfDeath) disagree, you're simply wrong, the same as is you claimed that equal protection didn't apply to interracial couples. If you think same-sex couples should be discriminated against, you're a bigot,and debating bigots is as pointless as debating creationists or climate science denialists.
The legal and moral situation is no different than if a state tried to block interracial couples from marrying. Anyone who supports such efforts, including Eich, should be shunned by all decent human beings. Until such time as he issues a public apology and states he's renounced his bigotry, fuck him and the horse he rode in on.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Along with over half the population of voters. I do believe your definition of asshole is someone who doesn't believe as you do.
but there is - the state does provide civil "marriage" to gay couples, so there's no problem there.
Except there's a bit of a religious thing that wants the word marriage to remain a heterosexual thing ("for the children" type stuff). That's where it gets more interesting, gay couples have the same rights as everyone else.
Anyway, enough people in California voted against it, yet its only Eich that's being attacked for it for some reason.
He's so solidly rooted as a prick that such disturbances are like a gentle breeze on the arm.
signature is pants
Using Firefox isn't acting against gay rights. Eich donated to an anti-gay marriage proposal, there's no evidence or even reason to believe that this is going to influence the company and its stance. Google on the other hand actively partakes in aggressive tax evasion and by using their software we are directly supporting that.
As to the logic that what he did was pretty assholish. I don't agree with it but I doubt we'd be supporting a campaign to get an atheist kicked off the board of a company in a highly religious country. There's a reason why it's better if we don't persecute people for holding views we disagree with, which is that it sets a precedent to persecute those whose views we agree with when they are in the minority.
That's the thing about liberty. It means that you have to tolerate people that you disagree with and don't particularly like. It's not liberty if everyone only tolerates people with their own brand of group think. That's more like communism or theocracy.
Your intolerance is the same as his intolerance.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Close, but no. He had a lease on an expensive Mercedes that he changed for a new identical Mercedes every six months to avoid having a license plate. If this is a prank or a statement or pure douchebaggery is left up to us to guess.
That's the thing about liberty. It means that you have to tolerate people that you disagree with and don't particularly like. It's not liberty if everyone only tolerates people with their own brand of group think. That's more like communism or theocracy.
Who, exactly, is trying to take away his rights? Is the person you replied to trying to get the government to silence him?
Your intolerance is the same as his intolerance.
I'm intolerant of a number of things, and one of those things includes blatant stupidity. I have no problem with intolerance as long as it's directed at an actual problem.
[End Of Line]
Prop 8 is a California-specific law and a clear majority of votes were in its favor. You're likely as ignorant about what Prop 8 is all about (hence the stupid comment regarding "dehumanizing") as you are regarding its context.
Those who "oppose the destruction of society by making marriage meaningless" feel just as strongly. Society only functions by people who disagree on strongly-held views being willing to live and work together for. When you start thinking of those with opposing views as "unpeople," you have become the problem.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
I object to your usage of bing, because assholes
OS/2 hasn't been IBM's for the better part of a decade, its controlled by eComstation who does a decent amount of business supporting financial markets.
As for those trying to make excuse for Mozilla? 1.- like it or not the CEO is the face of the company and in this case the face belongs to a bigot, 2.- For those that use the "the state voted for it" excuse? The southern states voted repeatedly and by a VERY large margin that Jim Crow was fine, so by your argument the southern states should still be segregated, and finally 3.- Those that make the lame "gay agenda" bullshit excuse? Did you say the same about blacks in the 60s, that it was a "Negro agenda"? Its about CIVIL RIGHTS, PERIOD.
The state gives preferential treatment to married couples when it comes to taxes, child visitation, property inheritance, there are VERY few places that the government doesn't give some sort of preferential treatment to couples. While I personally believe it is unconstitutional since its clearly joining church and state until we are ALL treated as individuals under the law by the government? it very much IS a civil rights issue, since straight couples are given rights and privileges that gay couples do not get. Oh and before somebody makes the foolish statement about wills and the like? In most states the will does NOT change the tax burden which will be felt by a surviving spouse, which again isn't the same if that spouse was in a hetro marriage.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
As long as gay couples are mandated to use the exact same divorce laws why not let them join in the fun known as marital bliss?
I've never once seen such an argument. But then, it's not very important to me. I'm just dismayed by the incivility.
The argument that "perhaps new ways of living / family structures will cause society to crumble, as the traditional way is what's proven" seems quite reasonable to me. Perhaps they will. What are the odds? They seem low to me, not 0. Seems like an interesting question.
As I said, they're people, but unintelligent people. Nothing will get through to them; they've been either thoroughly brainwashed since birth, or they're utterly irrational. Not many of them ever change.
No, that's how you label someone as an "unperson": incapable of moral decision, and thus not a moral entity, much like you can't reason with a panther, or a volcano.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Why am I reminded of the following??
LORETTA: It's every man's right to have babies if he wants them.
REG: But... you can't have babies.
LORETTA: Don't you oppress me.
REG: I'm not oppressing you, Stan. You haven't got a womb! Where's the foetus going to gestate?! You going to keep it in a box?!
LORETTA: crying
JUDITH: Here! I-- I've got an idea. Suppose you agree that he can't actually have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody's fault, not even the Romans', but that he can have the right to have babies.
FRANCIS: Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right to have babies, brother. Sister. Sorry.
Governor: You homosexuals will have all the exact same rights as married couples, but, instead of referring to you as "married", you can be... butt buddies.
[long silence]
Governor: Instead of being "man and wife", you'll be... butt buddies. You won't be "betrothed", you'll be...
[makes quote with his fingers]
Governor: ...butt buddies. Get it? Instead of a "bride and groom", you'd be...
[makes quote with his fingers again]
Governor: ...butt buddies.
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
The CEO of a company, and anyone in general, has a right to influence the society he lives in and how his government makes laws. He can do what he wishes with his money.
He should not be punished for taking part in the democratic process, he shouldn't be silenced, he should be outvoted. So, if you care enough, you need to become politically active. Boycotting things amounts to mob rule, it works the same way repression works.
The CEO of Mozilla doesn't own Mozilla, nor was he using it to influence his worldview. He's essentially an employee
OKCupid is leveraging it's own brand and Mozilla's to benefit itself and real losers are gays who let themselves be taken cynically taken advantage of.
Corporations don't have opinions, they only reflect those of it's customers. Where was the Rainbow Oreo in the 80's and 90's when gay rights was a divisive issue? Why didn't Oreo have an opinion then? These kinds of corporations only support the winning side of the culture wars. As we saw with Duck Dynasy and Cracker Barrel, if enough people complain, the company will unashamedly backflip. It's purely business, not ideological.
Consider this: What makes the guy at OKCupid any different from Sen. Joe McCarthy?
The coercive power of the state for a start. And, of course, the fact pointed out by GP, that OKC is merely making a recommendation, which is, your purple wig example notwithstanding, is a "demand" more easily ignored than a summons from the House. I mean, get real dude!
That being said, to urge a boycott of a company (which has, in light of this controversy, publicly stated support for marriage equality) on the basis of a $1,000 donation made by a CEO appointed some 5 years after said donation (which donation was, in any case, a perfectly legitimate expression of that individual's personal convictions) seems unduly zealous to me. Especially when far more compelling reasons could be given for boycotting nearly each and every substitute product.
Of course if LGBT issues outrank one's other concerns, such zealotry is equally a perfectly legitimate expression of personal conviction. I however, as a truly caring and compassionate human being (and as a sociopath that requires some effort let me tell you!), shall continue to use Firefox.
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
Indeed, it's exactly the same.
The gay employees are trying to take away his right to get married.
Got it.
-- Julien Pierre http://www.madbrain.com/blog