2013: America’s Gayest Year

From wedding bells to wedding cakes, gay issues were always on the cultural radar

Signs of the timesCredit: kurafire / Foter.com / CC BY-NCThere’s never been a better, safer time to be non-heterosexual in America. Sure, there are still regular reports of anti-gay violence and bullying. Sure, there are plenty of people who still believe practicing homosexuality is incompatible with God’s plan. Sure, there are still people who still believe that gay sex practices are physically harmful or weird or icky or … well, whatever. And outside of America’s borders, some other countries still have some very troubling attitudes toward gays.

But 2013 made it abundantly clear: American culture, largely, is down with the gays. This year made it clear that the war is over. American society will openly accommodate the homosexuality that has been part of its community all along. Acceptance has increased at what feels like an exponential rate (especially for anybody born prior to the 1980s).

Though several cultural and legal precedents from previous years helped get the country here, 2013 can arguably be defined as a tipping point. Here’s a look at how “It Got Better” for gays in America this year. While some developments improve liberty for all, certain other trends present First Amendment challenges, a reminder that many folks don’t discern the difference between government-mandated discrimination and private expressions of freedom of association.

The Wedding Bells Don’t Stop Ringing

The amazing expansion of same-sex marriage recognition actually began in November 2012. For the first time in American history, the pro-gay side won ballot initiatives to expand marriage recognition to same-sex couples. In Washington state, Maine and Maryland, voters gave the thumbs up for gay marriage.

So, even right as 2013 began, gay marriage recognition was expanding. Maryland’s law took effect on New Year’s Day, and the mayor of Baltimore married the first couple at 12:30 in the morning.

The wedding party continued across the country. In 2013, Rhode Island, Delaware, Minnesota, New Jersey, Hawaii, New Mexico, and Utah all joined the list of states recognizing gay marriages, some through legislative action, some through judicial rulings. California began recognizing same-sex marriages again after a Supreme Court decision denied standing to proponents of an anti-gay ballot initiative that passed, bouncing it back to courts that had declared the law unconstitutional.

As 2013 comes to a close, there are now 18 states (and the District of Columbia) recognizing same-sex marriage.

On the federal level, a divided Supreme Court ruled in June that the part of the Defense of Marriage Act that forbid the federal government from acknowledging legal same-sex marriages was unconstitutional. The decision alters the rules for federal taxes and benefits for scores of partnered gay citizens, both in the private realm and among government employees and the military.

As same-sex marriage recognition continues spreading, now would be a good time for libertarian-leaning policymakers and politicians to start looking at what federal policies, privileges and benefits are tied to marital status and start questioning why that’s the case and whether they can be changed.

Next: Closets are for clothes

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • SusanM||

  • Killaz||

    Don't bogart that puffer fish, dooood!

    Dolphins ‘deliberately get high’ on puffer fish nerve toxins by carefully chewing and passing them around

    http://www.independent.co.uk/e.....30126.html

  • Doctor Whom||

    We need a war on puffer fish. Won't someone please think of the baby dolphins?

  • nancy3998||

    This is certainly the nicest-job I have ever done..I earn up to 500$ per week. Im using an online business opportunity I heard about and I've made such great money. It feels so good making so much money when other people have to work for so much less. I work through this link, www.Buzz95.com

  • PD Scott||

    "Have you ever looked at your flipper? Like, really looked at it?"

  • SugarFree||

    +1 bag of flaming hot cheetoes

  • ||

    Sure, there are plenty of people who still believe practicing homosexuality is incompatible with God’s plan. Sure, there are still people who still believe that gay sex practices are physically harmful or weird or icky or … well, whatever

    Lots of people think eating meat is disgusting and immoral, but their existence doesn't bother me and it shouldn't bother gay people that churches are not going to start condoning homosexuality anytime soon.

  • wareagle||

    Lots of people think eating meat is disgusting and immoral, but their existence doesn't bother me and it shouldn't bother gay people that churches are not going to start condoning homosexuality anytime soon.

    doesn't bother me, either, until the vegans/vegetarians start agitating for meatless Mondays or insist on pushing their viewpoint on me. This year also saw the sue-to-get-a-mediocre cake mentality take hold, as if florists and bakeries en masse froze out gay customers.

    Some gay churches are welcoming to gays while others sound like Phil Robertson is the senior pastor. In a sane world, that would qualify as diversity but we stopped living in that world a while back.

  • John||

    We stopped that a long time ago. And what gays and people like Shackelford don't seem to get is that riding that whirlwind is great right up until it turns against you.

    There is no guarantee society at large will continue to be accepting of gays as it is today. If it ever turns for whatever reason, gays are going to want society to adopt a bit more of a live and let live attitude.

  • Killaz||

    Apply Rawls' idea of the veil of ignorance to your sexual orientation, ethnicity, race, medical condition, etc., the same as it is typically applied to economics. If you did not know the circumstances you would be born into what form of society would be the most advantageous for everyone as a starting point? Libertarian would win that scenario every time.

  • John||

    Yes. You protect your enemies rights not because you love your enemies or agree with them. You do so because you want your rights protected if you are ever on the wrong end of society.

  • BakedPenguin||

    ...what gays and people like Shackelford...

    Shackleford. Rusty Shackleford.

  • SusanM||

    It's difficult for activist groups to break out of the "attack first and always" mode.

    I think, though, that most of the LGBT community sees that we're in kind of a "sweet spot". There's a dramatic level of visibility and acceptance of us being a part of the landscape for well or ill.

    Still, the activist types still need to feel relevant. But it needs to dawn on them that fighting every battle is wasteful and counterproductive. Barring any major changes I see '14 and beyond as being a less confrontational place.

  • John||

    The activists will never do that. No activist ever admits victory because doing so will put them out of a job. Just like there are still race hustlers fifty years on from the CRA, there will continue to be LBGT hustlers no matter how much gays are accepted.

    The problem is that gays are a much smaller part of the population than blacks. So the potential for backlash is much greater for gays than it ever was for blacks. Real practicing gays are only one or two percent of the population. They will always be in a precarious position. So constantly pushing and linking their cause to bigger and bigger government coercion and other less popular minorities like transgenered and such creates a real risk.

  • prolefeed||

    WTF are "real practicing gays"? As opposed to fake non-practicing gays? Or just people completely out of the closet to everyone?

    Your estimate of 1% is probably off by an order of magnitude, based on both this article and my real world experience of observing how often my gaydar goes off:

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/696.....n-gay.aspx

  • SusanM||

    I don't need to practice - I'm pretty damn good at it.

  • ||

    WTF are "real practicing gays"? As opposed to fake non-practicing gays?

    Some of the higher estimates of the "gay" population include people who are bisexual or have had homosexual encounters but don't necessarily identify as gay, etc. For some actual data, see:

    http://www.iub.edu/~kinsey/res.....oprev.html

  • AgrarianBarbarian||

    Correct. I've seen this referred to as "The March of Dimes Effect". LGBT activists are really creeping me out with their "bake the cake or die" mentality.
    Another difference between blacks and gays is background. Blacks were dirt poor, had various national organizations dedicated to messing with them, were almost completely shut out of the culture (except as occasional minstrel-buffoons) and were abused at the state level. It's hard to compare that to Jim, a $600,000 / year graphic designer and his boyfriend Bruce, a $900,000 choreographer who is one of J-Lo's "besties". I once read that 75% of Disney animators were gay. While that may be conservative propaganda, it really isn't that farfetched. Such demographics make them ripe for a backlash, especially if we get a severe economic downturn that appears to need a scapegoat. The triumphalism we're seeing on this suggests that the authors have never read a history book. These things turn on a dime.

  • Killaz||

    Much like Jackson and Sharpton actually setting race relations back by feeding their ambitions for fame, wealth and glory through aggravated conflict, we are witnessing the same thing in the gay rights activist community. It is a counter productive strategy, but unfortunately feeds the coffers of those who engage in it.

  • Killaz||

    Though Sharpton did bring me personally closer to someone. I had a black coworker who knew I too liked to watch Inside Edition back in the early 90s when Bill O'Reilly hosted it. There was a report one evening on something Sharpton was involved in. Next morning the coworker comes up to me out of the blue, and says, 'Sharpton is a fucking idiot.' I was so glad to hear this I bought him lunch and we became pals.

  • BakedPenguin||

    I generally agree with that sentiment, but Sharpton has said a couple things recently that I agreed with.

    It was a bit scary.

  • John||

    Howard Dean is saying that Democrats need to bow to reality and repeal the insurance mandate. Howard Dean is making sense. These are truly insane times.

  • Boisfeuras||

  • wareagle||

    no activist group will ever concede that its pet issue has been resolved because, if it did, those folks would have to find something new to do in the morning.

    A former professor of my wife's summed it up neatly in terms of project funding and non-profit work in general: find a cause. That's it. Civil rights, feminism, and organized labor are essentially anachronisms yet big bucks remain in all three.

  • AgrarianBarbarian||

    But WHY do they NEED to "feel relevant"? Why can't they just graciously accept victory, and take up stamp collecting? They need to realize that every Chick-fil-A and "Duck Dynasty" incident they foment exponentially increases the chances of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory (while dramatically decreasing liberty in the process).

  • Rasilio||

    No, I'm sorry, did you see the clothes people wore in 1978?

    Clearly much gayer than 2013

  • Zombie Jimbo||

    And the moustaches! Gay gay gay

  • Killaz||

  • AgrarianBarbarian||

    Yeah the seventies have my vote for "gayest decade" too.
    Two Words: Village People.

  • Killaz||

    In my defense, I was only ten at the time, and the one piece jumper looked really cute on me.

  • OldMexican||

    Sure, there are still people who still believe that gay sex practices are physically harmful or weird or icky or … well, whatever.


    I love it when some say "there are still people..." as if they were talking about a few Cathars holding on in Montségur.

    I am willing to bet that a BIG majority of HUMANS think that gay sexual practices are either harmful or icky (especially male gay sexual practices) not that gays don't have the right to practice whatever they want. Just don't expect to see the market demographics for male gay porn to suddenly change overnight, because it will not.

  • John||

    Shackelford doesn't know anyone like that. So there must not be many of them.

  • BakedPenguin||

    It's Shackford, John. Dale Gribble is not writing incognito at H&R.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I don't know about "harmful" but isn't "icky-ness" the definition of a sexual orientation? At the thought of sexual intercourse with a male, I experience a gut-level feeling of "yuck!". On the other hand, at the thought of sexual intercourse with a female, I experience a gut-level feeling of arousal. From discussion with gay friends and family, from a homosexual's point of view, the feelings are just reversed.

    So unless the goal is to turn the whole of society into raging bisexuals, why is this feeling of "icky-ness" viewed as bigoted or what-have-you? For example, I experience that same feeling of "yuck" when thinking of the consumption of haggis. Does that make me a Scotophobe? Am I supposed to feel offended when my friend doesn't share the same love of ox-tail soup or boiled chicken feet that I do? Is the expression of what is essentially taste socially unacceptable?

  • Almanian!||

    Haggis with gravy is absolutely delicious.

    That is all.

  • PD Scott||

    Just yet the haggis cool a bit before you have sex with it.

  • Almanian!||

    You like fucking corpses?

    YOU WANT THE HAGGIS WARM BEFORE YOU HAVE SEX WITH IT! WARM!

    Not hot. But definitely not "cold" - ew...

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    It probably is, I just can't get past the idea of eating lungs.

  • ||

    Depends on how greasy they make it. Haggis is often loaded with so much fat that it's just greasy as hell. I mean, I like organ meats, but if you're going to fill a sheep bladder/intestine with a lot of grain and fat and just a little muscle and organ meat, I'm going to be wanting more meat and organ meat, a proper amount of fat, and no grains.

  • John||

    Because sadly the gay rights movement has largely been taken over by leftist totalitarians and they cannot tolerate anyone who doesn't agree with them. Everyone is either part of the hive or an enemy to be destroyed or subsumed in the hive.

    As a result of that tolerance now means "acceptance and support". It is not enough to say "I can't stand this but it is a free country so do what you like". For leftists it is not and should not be a free country. Everyone must be forced to believe or least publicly say "I accept and support this".

  • Killaz||

    That's a solid point. I for one can't stand food and sex mixed up together. The Ann Margret scene in Tommy disgusts me to no end. Though I do make a single exception forfor Key West Lime pie.

  • John||

    I hate that scene too. It is one hell of an accomplishment to manage to make a scene with a 30 something, half naked Ann Margret something you don't want to view.

  • ||

    Food plus sex is also something I can't stand. However, sex and blood...

  • SugarFree||

    Did I ever tell you about the girl who got a banana popsicle broken off in her land down under?

  • ||

    I thought you had told me every story about your mom, but I don't recall that one. Please continue.

  • SugarFree||

    As it was told to me, by your mom:

    Her boyfriend was giving it to her good with a banana popsicle and she jerked when it froze some sensitive bit. It broke off in her and she tried to dig it out, but can't reach it. Same for the boyfriend. She started really freaking out and hitting him. She then ran to the bathroom and tried lapping hot water out of the tub up into herself to melt it. When that didn't work, she contorted herself up under the tub faucet and shots water up in herself until it was gone.

    Later on, she got a really bad yeast infection. The boyfriend suggested anal, but after he was done, she let out a massive fart that spattered him with shit and semen. He was so grossed out, he threw up on her back. And then she threw up. They broke up shortly afterward.

  • ||

    I love this story. I'm glad you posted it twice. Man, our moms sure are crazy.

  • SugarFree||

    As it was told to me, by your mom:

    Her boyfriend was giving it to her good with a banana popsicle and she jerked when it froze some sensitive bit. It broke off in her and she tried to dig it out, but can't reach it. Same for the boyfriend. She started really freaking out and hitting him. She then ran to the bathroom and tried lapping hot water out of the tub up into herself to melt it. When that didn't work, she contorted herself up under the tub faucet and shots water up in herself until it was gone.

    Soon after, she got a really bad yeast infection from the sugar in the popsicle or maybe the tap water power douche. The boyfriend suggested anal, but after he was done, she let out a massive fart that spattered him with shit and semen. He was so grossed out, he threw up on her back. And then she threw up. They broke up shortly afterward.

  • SugarFree||

    Damn you, 3PM!

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Heroic Mulatto,

    why is this feeling of "icky-ness" viewed as bigoted or what-have-you?


    I'll throw the argument out there that for cosmotarians, tolerance means something completely different compared to us who simply follow the NAP.

    For them, tolerance means celebration. If you don't show open celebration and applause for the flamboyant displays from (some) gay men, you must then be a bigot. Not unlike calling a person "anti-kid" because he does not like the Disney Channel.

  • Ann N||

    I agree with HM's initial point: ickyness is a morally neutral preference. atleast at scale of initiation of force.

    villification over that preference should not be backed up by law.

    if we allow CRA to mandate employment than what happened to phil robertson is villification backed by law.

    its indefensible from an intellectual standpoint.

  • SugarFree||

    Every year Glee is on the air is the gayest year.

    That show is so shitty I'm beginning to be convinced there really is a sinister gay agenda bent on destroying America.

  • John||

    In fairness, do gay people really watch that? I am not prepared to blame Glee on the gay menace. I suspect it is a product of the soccer mom menace.

  • SugarFree||

    A gay guy created it and inflicted it on us. But, more to the point, it does seem to have a large gay guy and fat girl following.

    FOX hates us.

  • John||

    Is there a more unholy alliance than gay men and fat, fag hags? We shouldn't outlaw sodomy. But maybe we should think about outlawing being an overweight groupie for such.

  • sarcasmic||

    Is there a more unholy alliance than gay men and fat, fag hags?

    Personally I don't mind fatty fag-hags. It's the svelte fag-hags I resent because I like to bone svelte women.

    Oh.

    Duh.

    You resent fatty fag-hags for the same reason I resent svelte fag-hags.

    My bad.

    Never mind.

    Forget I said anything.

    Oops.

    I wasn't thinking.

  • John||

    Kate Upton is not fat sarcasmic.

  • sarcasmic||

    She ain't svelte either.

  • BakedPenguin||

    ...a large gay guy and fat girl following.

    Quality entertainment, ground to dust by the bear / chubbie cabal.

  • ||

    Considering the show's ratings have been in freefall and many, many of the people who went apeshit over it in the first place quickly moved on with chagrin like the people who bought bell-bottoms during their six-month resurgence in the 90s, I think Glee is pretty much over. Thank Jeebus.

    Now it's time for Once Upon a Time. Ugh.

  • John||

    My wife watches that. It actually was sort of bearable when it started. It was kind of a fun idea of making a soap opera. But that lasted like five episodes. The last time I saw her watching it they were on an island fighting an obviously gay and evil Peter Pan. That show needs to die and die soon.

  • AlmightyJB||

    My wife does too. Yeah, I watched it with her to humor her and lasted about as many episodes as you did. I only lasted that long because of the hot wicked witches busty costumes.

  • ||

    I've only just heard about it. ABC + re-imagined fairy tales = OH GOD PLEASE NO

  • John||

    Imagine Desperate Housewives with better looking women and with all of the characters secretly from a fairy tail.

  • ||

    I can't, because I would never watch Desperate Housewives. But I have seen one episode of Glee and just that has frightened me enough. Is there singing in the new show? It's the singing that's the most frightening of all.

  • John||

    No singing. And I can honestly say I have never seen a single second of Glee. I was once in another room and my wife flipped by it for a few seconds of "Don't Stop Believing", that was disturbing enough.

  • SugarFree||

    In the immortal words of Jeff Winger: "LEARN SOME ORIGINAL SONGS!"

    It's time for the whole reimagined Fairy Tale to die off generally. How many times do we need to recycle Wicked? Especially since it wasn't very good in the first place.

  • John||

    I was drug to see Wicked with my inlaws once. Now I am about as open to Broadway as any straight man can be. It is not my favorite but I can tolerate it if it is really good. Wicked was awful. I cannot for the life of me understand why people thought it was so great.

  • SusanM||

    Something had to replace Buffy the Vampire Slayer

  • AgrarianBarbarian||

    The Gay Guy / Fat Girl Synod is the NEW axis of evil. Who do you think is keeping the Oprah channel on the air?

  • AlmightyJB||

    How can it be the gayest year without any twilight movies?

  • AlmightyJB||

    Oh yeah. Glee. That's what happens when you don't read the comments.

  • AlgerHiss||

    "Sure, there are still people who still believe that gay sex practices are physically harmful..."

    Uhhhh...that might be because some of us have read the CDC's HIV surveillance report....for years.

    http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/statistics/basics/

    And year after year, it always tells the same story.

  • John||

    In fairness that is specific to gay men. The lesbian community has a much lower rate of STDs. They just have a domestic violence problem no one ever talks about.

  • sarcasmic||

    In fairness that is specific to gay men.

    More specifically gay men who engage in anal sex. Most gay men are cock suckers, but don't to the poop-chute. Ass fuckers are a minority among gay men, despite the stereotypes.

    Transmission of HIV requires broken skin. That's why it's easier for women to get it from men than it is for men to get it from women. Because it's more likely that there will be tears in the vaginal skin than the penis.

    Homos who are strictly pee-pee puffers who don't allow dick in their ass aren't at much of a risk of HIV compared to their power-bottom brethren.

    [Lesbians} just have a domestic violence problem no one ever talks about.

    That doesn't surprise me.

  • John||

    I think receptive oral sex from someone with HIV is fairly risky, though not as risky as anal sex.

    And yes, the lesbian community has a real undercurrent of domestic abuse that is never talked about in the main stream media. It is pretty nasty.

  • sarcasmic||

    The few lesbians I've known were some mean bitches with serious anger issues. Like I said, it doesn't surprise me.

  • John||

    And imagine having two women living together with all those hormones and emotions. And since two women are more likely to be physically evenly matched than a straight couple, they are likely to be less scared of going at it. In the most abusive straight couples, the woman is usually scared enough of the man to at least try and defuse things or walk away. But if she is not afraid of the other, the fight is on.

  • SugarFree||

    And worse, studies have shown that women living together don't synch menses unless most of them are having unprotected vaginal intercourse with men. Half the month is shark week.

  • AgrarianBarbarian||

    How come they always look like supermodels in the pornos, but like Ernest Borgnine in real life?

  • SugarFree||

    Saliva and stomach acid both kill HIV. Unless you have open wounds in your mouth, it's not very dangerous.

    I remember a Discover magazine article from the early days of AIDS talking about the respective risks of vaginal vs. anal. The illos were titled THE FRAGILE ANUS and THE RUGGED VAGINA.

    "Damn, girl... you got a rugged vagina!"

  • John||

    I think I read somewhere that the chances of transmitting HIV from man to woman during vaginal sex is like 1 in 25. From woman to man from vaginal sex is around 1 in 300, though they are not totally sure. They do know it is very low though.

    This is why HIV, once they started testing the blood supply, remained a gay men who engage in anal sex and junkies who use dirty needles plague. The transmission rates for straight and oral sex just are not high enough to get it started in other communities. In contrast, the transmission rate man to woman for Chlamydia is something like 80% and 25% from woman to man.

  • John Galt||

    Isn't it a hate crime to experience knowledge about a member, or members, of one of the special protected classes that could be considered negative in any way?

  • KRoyall||

    As male on male anal sex is accounting for over 60% of new HIV transmissions your assertion that "most" don't engage in it is suspect. We are talking about 2% of the population accounting for 60% of new infections. Do the math.

  • JW||

    "Sure, there are still people who still believe that gay sex practices are physically harmful..."

    The few ER docs I've talked to say that the things they find embedded in peoples' anuses is amusing. It's not strictly limited to gay men, tho'.

  • John Galt||

    Don your gay apparel the year is shaping up to be the fruitiest in history!

  • Jayburd||

    Um, my bakery or my photography studio is my PROPERTY! So in the words of Frank Booth, "FUCK YOU, YOU FUCKING FUCK".

  • mrs antipervert||

    Publishers of this perverted article along with the sick minded politicians who suck for a living should all be in mental institutions at the least. Nothing could be more degenerate and mentally and physically destructive to our youth and normal humans.

    YOOO BROO

  • buy steroids Australia||

    Does that make me a Scotophobe? Am I supposed to feel offended when my friend doesn't share the same love of ox-tail soup or boiled chicken feet that I do?

  • AgrarianBarbarian||

    I guess I'm about to "out" myself as something of a retrograde on this issue. My father was a building super on West 10th street in NYC, and I spent weekends and holidays about as immersed in "gay culture" as a heterosexual 12 year old can be. The fact that I spend the week with my mother at my grandfather's 200 acre dairy farm on Long Island combined with this to make me a seriously weird dude. However, I have to say, its hard to think of the gay millionaires who paid $10K a month to live in the the building my father managed as an oppressed minority. They possesed levels of wealth and (more importantly) cultural influence FAR in excess of the people in the (vehemently) non-gay farming community where I spent my weekdays. The fact that Adam-n-Steve can't get a "Government Approved" stamp on their relationship is unfair, but it hardly strikes me as the "Jim Crow" issue of our age. I'd rather see "us" spend "our" political capital on freeing the MILLIONS of people rotting in prison because they preferred to smoke, rather than drink, their relaxation.

  • ALP||

    AgrarianBarbarian: "However, I have to say, its hard to think of the gay millionaires who paid $10K a month to live in the the building my father managed as an oppressed minority. They possesed levels of wealth and (more importantly) cultural influence FAR in excess of the people in the (vehemently) non-gay farming community where I spent my weekdays."
    ******
    THIS! You've hit upon something very important. This movement seems utterly tone deaf in that it fails to see what a turn off it is to have well-heeled, educated elites crying about "oppression". I voted for SSM in WA state, as there is no logical reason NOT to let SS couples marry. But I've never seen a cause so thoroughly insulting to its own supporters. The cause is also oblivious to recent data showing that marriage is increasingly a middle/upper-middle class phenomenon as well. Wealthy elites crying "oppression"? Good god....

  • Federale||

    And it showed us that homosexuals were enemies of free markets, free people, and free association. Homosexuals only want to impose homosexuality on others. They don't want to be free. The want to be a better dressed Stalin, which makes them Nazis because at least the Nazis had homosexual fashion designers making their uniforms. Then there were the homosexuals who made up the early Nazi party, like Ernst Rohm.

  • Transactional Funding Lenders||

    I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. I think I will leave my first comment.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement