Gay Marriage

Video: Why Gay Marriage is Winning

|

Last week Virginia's ban on same-sex marriage was struck down by a federal judge. While same-sex marriage in the Old Dominion isn't yet fully legal, the ruling is yet another sign that those fighting for marriage equality are winning. 

Back in February of 2012, Reason TV's Kennedy explained why libertarian-leaning Republicans have been central to the movement's success. 

Original text below:

With Washington state recently legalizing same-sex unions and Maryland about to follow suit, gay marriage hasn't been on this big a roll since Bert and Ernie first shacked up on Sesame Street. When Maryland finalizes its bill, seven states and the District of Columbia will sanction the practice.

But before you bust out the appletinis and Indigo Girls CDs to celebrate, consider that just last year in Maryland—a deep-blue, Democratic-majority state when it comes to politics—gay marriage went down faster than George Michael in a public restroom due to resistance from socially conservative African Americans in the Democratic Party. Indeed, while 71 percent of white Democrats in the Old Line State favor gay marriage, just 41 percent of black Democrats do.

So what's different this time around? Democratic Gov. Martin O'Malley and other pro-marriage legislators took a page from New York's gay playbook and reached around to sympathetic Republicans to seal the deal.

Inconceivable even a generation ago, gay marriage is well on its way to becoming mainstream as a growing majority of Americans now favor it. The only question is when, not if, folks such as Maryland residents Justin and Phillip Terry-Smith will join heterosexuals in the joys of getting married—and divorced—happily ever after.

About 2.30 minutes. Produced by Joshua Swain. Written by Nick Gillespie and Kennedy, who also hosts.

Advertisement

NEXT: Miners Being Rescued From Abandoned Gold Shaft in South Africa

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.

  1. while 71 percent of white Democrats in the Old Line State favor gay marriage, just 41 percent of black Democrats do.

    So, favoring gay marriage is RACIST!

    1. Then I guess I’m racist.

  2. Is this because growing number of American carefully considered all the issues, the reason why it was understood to be a union of man and woman in colonial times, and measuring those rationales against the circumstances of modern society?

    Or is it because media elites promote gay marriage?

    Because as we all know, the American electorate’s opinions are derived from thoughtful analysis, and not justy what media elites promote.

    1. Is this because growing number of American carefully considered all the issues … Or is it because media elites promote gay marriage?

      I suspect it’s the latter. Shit, did I use “latter” incorrectly? I mean the second option.

      And if Reason is going to keep recycling content like this, I won’t feel guilty about recycling my own comments. So here goes:

      The average SSM – supporting, polygamy – opposing trendy American would probably support polygamy as well, if all his favorite sitcoms had witty, likable polygamist characters.

      1. Yeah, dummy. A latter is what you use to climb up to fix the antennuh.

        Also, regarding your last point: this.

        1. The whole SSM/Polygamy scam is one of the most clever things the right has come up with in years.

          They attempt to derail the SSM debate by saying it’s a stalking horse for polygamy, forcing SSM supporters to deny it in order to bring the debate back into focus. And now that SSM is winning, the right gets to whine that SSM-supporters are the real bigots because they don’t want to let the poor polygamists get married.

          Some of these retards are quite cunning.

          1. I’m on the “right” because I support legalizing both gay marriage and polygamy?

            OK.

            What’s the official “libertarian” position, then?

            1. If the comment didn’t apply to you, why are your panties in such a bunch?

          2. What about first cousins?

            The KY law that was just overturned is literally the same as for first cousins marrying, but that one wasnt overturned.

          3. So, assuming one would argue against legalized polygamy, how would a pro-gay marriage advocate argue against polygamy? Or does one not argue against polygamy if one favors gay marriage?

            1. Something something. Bigots. Hypocrites. Idiots. SOCONZ!!!!!

        2. I’m already aware of the existence of Big Love, thanks. I’m also aware that HBO currently has a show that features brother – sister incest.

          None of that changes the fact that “gay is cool!” messages are FAR more widespread in pop culture than pro-polygamy or pro-incest messages are.

          1. Are you under the impression that GoT presents incest as ‘Cool”? Because we might be watching different shows.

            1. Haven’t watched the TV series, but in the books Martin definitely presented incest as not cool.

              1. Not to mention that even Jaime sours on it further into the books.

            2. Yes. I think the creators of the show wanted me to cheer for the Kingslayer when he defenestrated a boy who caught him fucking his sister. *rolls eyes*

              1. Se we are watching the same show.

              2. Jaime actually becomes a person worth cheering later on. My favorite character by far.

                  1. At what point is the TV series at so I can avoid spoiling it?

                    1. At what point is the TV series at so I can avoid spoiling it?

                      No, I mean no spoilers on who your favorite character by far is. Some of us don’t want to know ahead of time.

                1. Jaime actually becomes a person worth cheering later on. My favorite character by far.

                  That’s a stretch. He certainly undergoes some character growth, and you feel bad for him when you see just how shitty Cersei treats him, and how his sarcasm and general assholery is a shield to hide his wounded and fragile self.

                  But he’s still a bastard who threatened to return an infant to his father via catapult. I’ve never cheered him.

                  1. Jaime’s character development is some of the most interesting in the books. Like any good character, he is multifaceted and has his good points and his bad. I try not to “like” or “cheer” for anyone in the series, partly because it’s more complex than that, and partly because you don’t know who will get whacked.

                    Of course, I cannot help but cheer for Tyrion. But I think that’s pretty common.

                    1. One thing I love is how both him and Cersei are hated by most people in books one and two. Then book three, Jaime becomes a POV character and definitely gets some redemption and people see things from his perspective and begin to understand him more.

                      Then in book four, Cersei becomes a POV character. So you kind of expect the same thing, at least a little bit. Except it turns out she is just as evil, twisted, spiteful, cruel, and stupid as she appears. Reading her chapters is like passages from the unedited autobiography of Hillary Clinton.

                    2. Her descent into quasi-madness during the fourth and fifth books is pretty epic. Martin did a great job of portraying someone progressively losing their shit.

                    3. Yeah there’s one particular chapter where she makes three decisions that are absolutely retarded, which will cause major negative consequences for House Lannister. Her uncle Kevan (I think it was him, somebody anyway) flips shit on her and is all “WTF do you think you’re doing?” and her internal monologue is something like “They just can’t handle the fact that a woman is outsmarting men. I’m doing better than Jaime or father or Tyrion would have”

      2. Uh, what’s wrong with Polygamy?

        If you want to be twice (or more) as miserable as every other married person, have at it.

        1. Uh, what’s wrong with Polygamy?

          This is seriously a good question. And it’s hard to come up with a good answer based on rationality without appealing to religious doctrine.

          1. And even religious doctrine doesnt really cover it, at least judeo-christianity, as there is plenty of (positive) polygamy in the bible.

          2. This is why I expect fully legal polygamous, polyandrous, and polymorphous perverse marriages in the mid future: the arguments against these unions are the same as those against gay marriage which arguments have been kicked out of the discussion.

        2. No shit.

          I have been married twice and cannot find one good reason why those experiences would have been improved by doing them at the same time. If I actually believed in Hell that would be somewhere in the same neighborhood.

  3. OT: Chinese authorities have set up 25 “baby hatches” across the country to allow parents to safely abandon their unwanted infants.

    Parents simply place a child in the hatch, press an alarm button and then leave, remaining anonymous.

    Right.

    1. The hatches are always in the alleys behind KFCs for some reason.

      1. Great, now I’m hungry.

        1. “Thumb suckin’ good!”

      2. Carl’s Jr. Computer: [the woman kicks the computer, and it sprays a fast-acting tranquilizer in her face] This should help you calm down. Please come back when you can afford to make a purchase. Your kids are starving. Carl’s Jr. believes no child should go hungry. You are an unfit mother. Your children will be placed in the custody of Carl’s Jr. Carl’s Jr… “Fuck You, I’m Eating.”

        [Joe approaches the computer]

        Carl’s Jr. Computer: Welcome to Carl’s Jr. Would you like to try our EXTRA BIG ASS TACO? Now with more MOLECULES!

        1. I remember flipping through the channels several months ago and seeing that movie was on Comedy Central — edited to remove the obscenity.

          1. I really don’t understand the point of editing obscenities on a comedy station. Using them correctly is an art form; the comedy “geniuses” that have perfected it are pretty obvious.

            1. I really don’t understand the point of editing obscenities on a comedy station.

              Why do you hate the bleeping children?

        2. Carl’s Jr has awesome breakfast burgers…on another front get government out of marriage other than enforcing the contract rights and let any religious or social groups marry whomever they care to. None of my business or anyone elses business.

    2. It used to be that churches, convents, and orphanages would maintain such little entrances equipped with a bell to summon the porter for the new arrival.

      I think this is done in Germany now because of an epidemic of newborns found in dumpsters.

  4. What is being won here? Tax benefits that are denied to single people?

  5. “Gay marriage went down faster than George Michael in a public restroom due to resistance from socially conservative African Americans in the Democratic Party.”

    Just for that sentence, Kennedy should get a Pulitzer.

    The idea that LGBT, African-Americans, Latinos, and Asian-American immigrants are all unified in lock step by their support for civil rights is a white, liberal fantasy.

    Even if you just take LGBT, African-Americans, and Latinos, the only thing that unifies them in their support of the Democratic Party is the belief that the Republican Party is out to get them. If the Republican Party, for whatever reason, wasn’t the boogeyman anymore, that coalition would fall apart faster than a gay marriage in a bathhouse.

    1. Yep, hajib wearing Islamist women are totally in lock step with LGBT civil rights.

      1. Or ask the children of Asian immigrants how they feel about affirmative action.

        Ask African-Americans how they feel about illegal immigrants, and you’re likely to hear them say something like, “They took our jobs!”.

        Giving people a common enemy tends to unify them, and these disparate groups are convinced that the Republican Party is their common enemy.

        And that’s all it is.

        Of course, I can’t say the Republicans aren’t to blame. A lot of this is Republicans shooting themselves in the foot–and the Democrats just taking advantage of that.

        1. True, but I think some of the arguments Democrats are making are starting to unravel.

        2. Ask African-Americans how they feel about illegal immigrants, and you’re likely to hear them say something like, “They took our jobs!”.

          African Americans as a group are one of the few for whom that is actually true because they are disproportionately undereducated or low-skilled.

          Just another example of how voting against your self-interest is only irrational when it’s poor people voting for low taxes on rich people.

          1. Just to be clear, they’re likely to say that whether I agree with them or not.

    2. I completely disagree. The groups you mention are reliably hardcore leftists.

      You get a group of 100 black Americans, 95 of them will vote just as Marxist as they possibly can: The more Marxist the better.

      That stream coming up from South America is nothing more than a bunch of little Che Guevaras in the making. They adore the Shining Path.

      Nope. Those groups you mention are not your freedom/liberty crowd.

      Not even a little bit.

      1. You’re quite the collectivist shithead, aren’t you. How unsurprising.

      2. That stream coming up from South America is nothing more than a bunch of little Che Guevaras in the making. They adore the Shining Path.

        Pure, unadulterated bullshit.

      3. American got a new handle?

        1. Dammit, why did anon-nonbot have to beat me to the punch?

          1. Buahaha, too slow!

            1. It wasn’t that I was too slow so much as I was doing some other stuff on the computer, and when I reloaded the page and got to Murkin’s comment above I immediately figured it was him, only to find that somebody else had done the same figuring. 😉

      4. “Those groups you mention are not your freedom/liberty crowd.”

        I didn’t say they were.

        I said they weren’t unified.

        Incidentally, people who vote Republican because they’re against gay rights and immigration, etc. aren’t the freedom/liberty crowd either.

  6. I went out to do karaoke last night. Two girls announced their engagement. The reaction from the drunken conservative rednecks that populate the bar was overwhelmingly positive.

    1. For rednecks, nothing’s wrong with some girl on girl action. Send a report when a couple of guys announce in the same club.

      1. I’ve seen guys kissing in the same bar. Few people seemed to mind.

      2. I’d watch girl on girl action vs guy on guy, but that’s just me… I’m kind of a whatever blows your hair back dude when it comes to porn.

        Free teh porn and free porn, everyone wins.

  7. Also, more than a decade a ago some Louisiana legislators, notably a black Democrat preacher legislator and a Republican with a gay son legislator, attempted to pass or did pass a gay friendly family contract bill or some such.

    Gay marriage has been coming for a long, long time. Things move slowly in our federal republic though.

    1. If this is slow, fast would be quicker than lightning.

  8. Can two brothers marry one another?

    Perhaps a daughter can marry her mother?

    Three sisters marry each other?

    If not, why not?

    1. Which ones are going to have an open bar?

      1. Free booze, I’m on it.

    2. I distinctly remember Bert referring to the other guy as ‘cousin Ernie’ in a skit some years back. So, assuming if they are first cousins, states that allow first cousins to marry, should have no quibble with letting two homosexual cousins marry, given there is no compelling argument to be made concerning the rearing of children (after all, from a rationale standpoint homosexual adoption is in terms of the good of the species adaptively superior to cousins conceiving) or social stability when you allow cousins to marry.

      Well, that was my outstanding contribution to libertarianism for the day. Time to play some video games.

      1. I support group puppet marriage.

        1. Every libertarian is a nihilist of some sort of another. For instance, I support the liberal, salacious even, use of commas and encourage them to free range, in the open fields of paragraphs, no matter the damage they cause to sense or good form. You are into puppet communes. Libertine degeneracy!

          1. I’ve never understood why so many people think “libertine” is an insult. Everyone pursues pleasure, even if the pleasure they pursue is the dubious pleasure of denying yourself pleasure.

            1. When people try to use “libertine” as an insult, I think they’re trying to imply the person has no morals, never realizing that they’re trying to convey their displeasure that the person doesn’t share the same morals as them. Basically “Do what I say or else you’re a bad person!”

            2. Bender: Look, I enjoy life and its pleasures as much as anyone here, except perhaps you, Hedonismbot. [Hedonismbot eats grapes in a very sloppy manner.] But we need to be shut off, especially you, Hedonismbot!

              Hedonismbot: I apologize for nothing!

            3. Because libertine men lead to scarlet women followed inevitably by ragtime. Shameless music, that ragtime.

          2. Speaking of games, got content downloading at themoment, the makers of The Walking Dead game series, latest reviewed here —

            http://www.ae-infinite.com/201…..ode-1.html

            is working on a full scale Borderlands game. Wonder how that will work out.

            This is Gearbox’s CEO opinion:

            Pitchford said Tales came about after Telltale approached Gearbox about the idea.

            “I couldn’t say yes fast enough,” he said. “Like, hell yeah.”

            “It’s been a lot of fun working with those guys,” Pitchford said. “I think they’re better storytellers than we are, frankly.”

            Personally, as much fun as the story was in Borderlands 2 with the addition of Handsome Jack, I prefer the story of the first one. You’re motivation should have never been anything more than to loot and find the big loot box at the end. They made Borderlands 2 too compelling which destroyed the ethos.

            1. Also, Mad Moxxi and the Wedding Day Massacre looks like it is going to be a lot of fun. Drunk Thrashers, square dancing hillbillies and shooting Micks, ah, the life!

            2. While I agree that keeping Borderlands as simple as possible story-wise works for the gameplay, I thought the more elaborate (relatively, of course) storyline of B2 was fine. It extended the feel of the series. Plus it gave us Tiny Tina and Mr. Torgue, two of the best characters you could ask for.

              I’ll be curious to see what they do in B3. I just hope they do it as soon as possible.

              1. It’s a mixed blessing. When I figured out who Tina’s father was — I got serious chills. It was a Holy Shit moment worthy of a first rate movie.

              2. Here is the Pitchford interview. I’ll let him break the news (also, the last of the DLCs is going to be out in April, looks like a Far Cry 1 send up):

                http://www.polygon.com/2014/2/…..ware-games

                “When you think of what Borderlands 3 should be, it should be massive,” Pitchford said. “It should be bigger and better than Borderlands 2. It should carry forward the story. It’s probably crazy multiplatform, depending on timing. It would have to be a next-gen game and a current-gen game, if it was coming at any time in the reasonably near future.

                “We love Borderlands, and we know customers do too. So we will be doing more in Borderlands. But the thing that, when you think of what Borderlands 3 should be… No. We are not developing that right now. We don’t know what that is yet. We can imagine what it must achieve, but we don’t know what it is yet. I’m not going to fuck around with you like Valve does with Half-Life 3. Look. We know we want it and we know it should exist, but we don’t know what it is yet. But we are doing things in Borderlands that we’ll announce soon, that are good, and that I think people will be really excited about if you love the franchise.”

    3. Can two brothers marry one another?
      Perhaps a daughter can marry her mother?
      Three sisters marry each other?

      Who gives a fuck if they do? Not me.

      1. Could you please repost your comment in the form of a haiku?

        1. Who in the fucking world
          Gives a shit about what assholes do
          in their own goddamn bedroom

          1. The committee thanks you.

            1. What’s this bullshit!? I don’t get a fucking participation trohpy!?

              1. Of course you do. Please post your address and Warty should be there with it in 1-2 business days. Please dress like a Japanese Maid.

                1. 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington, DC 20500
                  Tell him to bring some amphetamines, cause there are a lot of people that need to be fucked.

              2. That’s because once again your post wasn’t in the form of a haiku. You should have written something like:

                What is this bullshit?
                I don’t get a trophy for
                Participation?

              3. | .-..-“”“””-..-.
                | |(`\`’—-‘`/`)|
                | \\ ;:. ; //
                | \\|%. |//
                | )|%: |(
                | ((,|%. |,))
                | ‘-\::. /-‘
                | ‘::..’
                | }{
                | {__}
                | / \
                | |`—-‘|
                |jgs | [#1] |
                | ‘.____.’

                There you go.

                1. Oh my, It looks like reason eats all the extra spaces. Just go here instead:

                  http://www.retrojunkie.com/asc…..ophies.htm

  9. Can I say I’m sick of the term “marriage equality” I’m all in favor of handing out certificates of achievement, rainbow colored ponies, and tasteful trophies to any and all, but we’ve gotten so far away from the basic issue that the state is involved at all that I almost get physically ill when it gets written about here.

    First step, journey of 1000 miles, etc, sure, but how about an honorable mention from time to time for the position that all of these laws and victories are plain fucked?

    1. I’m sick of the term “marriage equality”

      That’s why we’ve moved on to the term “income inequality”. Have you seen the cost of the average wedding these days?

      1. I thought we moved on to income inequality because there was such a massive stampede of thoughtless teathuglicans criticizing the president for his various policies when poverty still exists in the world.

        1. I thought that was because the blue team just went back to it’s default state of demanding protection money from the productive segment of society.

          1. This^^^, I’m volunteering for Holder’s firing squad right now.

  10. Video: Why Gay Marriage is Winning

    That’s easy. Because those who insist that something is not real unless it is recognized by government are relentless.

    I think it’s sad that so many libertarians have come on board that particular bandwagon.

    Talk about “marriage equality” (OMG inequality aaauuuggghh) or “legalized gay marriage” (OMG not being recognized by government is the same as being illegal aaauuugggghh) is just fucking sad.

    Oh, and at this point I don’t give a shit anymore. The relentlessness has worn me down.

    I don’t care anymore.

    1. I think it’s sad that so many libertarians have come on board that particular bandwagon.

      I think it’s sad but totally predictable that you wantonly miss the point and fight strawmen.

      Oh, and at this point I don’t give a shit anymore. The relentlessness has worn me down.

      Oh good please do shut up.

      1. What strawman?

        If every libertarian had spent the time he spent supporting SSM opposing state licensing of marriage, we might have eliminated state marriage by now.

        Or at least in a few states, sort of the CO and WA or privatization.

        1. I’m with you on this robc, enforce the contract, otherwise the state should stay the fuck out of marriage.

    2. Reason is desperate for any straw they can grasp onto to support their general Pollyannish outlook.

  11. Kennedy, Kennedy, Kennedy. Such artful irreverence.

    What a wonderful addition to Reason you are.

  12. “So what’s different this time around? Democratic Gov. Martin O’Malley and other pro-marriage legislators took a page from New York’s gay playbook and reached around to sympathetic Republicans to seal the deal.”

    Smooth move. Never met a Republican who could resist a reacharound.

  13. Gay marriage is probably winning for two reasons:

    1. People have been convinced that homosexuals represent a far larger share of the population than they actually do. Polls show people wildly overestimating the number of homosexuals in the country. And then, of course, the number of gays at all interested in marriage, a small percentage of a small percentage, are the “public face” of the whole thing, leading people to think a huge number of people are being denied some sort of right.

    2. It’s a stealth increase in spending. Now marriage benefits are automatically extended to a new group of people, without there being an explicit decision to do that, because it’s only a side effect of gay marriage.

    So: people are dumb, and other people want to cash in without letting you know they’re picking your pocket. Libertarian as hell, isn’t it?

    1. Putting force of government behind the definition of a word is libertarian as hell. I must agree.

      1. It’s a stealth increase in spending. Now marriage benefits are automatically extended to a new group of people, without there being an explicit decision to do that, because it’s only a side effect of gay marriage.

        Well, that’s how it works. Open borders are ok, because any problems it causes are due to the welfare state, so we should get rid of the welfare state. On the other hand, government benefits for gay marriage are ok, because we know perfectly well we won’t be getting rid of the welfare state any time soon, and nobody, not even libertarians, is seriously challenging it.

        Heads I win, tails you lose.

        1. I’m guessing most libertarians are against preferential tax treatment for teh married, whether straight or gay, that’s how I look at it (as a straight, unmarried guy).

          Climate retards on CBS late night, including Kerry, abused Mom front and center bitching about spendy bacon/derp.

          And I love me some good meaty bacon.

  14. No answer to the title question, why are they winning, nor even a clear case that they are. In the broader scope, we’ve all lost in the redefinition of marriage, and I’ve seen nothing yet indicating that Reason (or Cato) knows anything about its new definition and how it differs from the old. The only hint of an idea about returning civil rights related to marriage comes from those libertarians who want to privatize the institution entirely (which gives a hint as to where it went wrong).

  15. Don’t worry, the religious fundies see that they are losing on gay marriage and are already moving on.

    Following Kansas’s lead, states will start passing laws allowing blatant discrimination against and segregation of LGBT persons.

    1. Stay calm and don’t worry. Progressives will fight back with the Wedding Cake and Floral Arrangement Civil Rights, Liberty and Human Decency Act.

      Courts will uphold it, once again foiling the Baptist Taliban’s plan for dominating the world.

    2. Nothing says libertarian like outlawing thinking bigoted thoughts.

  16. So this is probably the first time a progressive judge’s rewrite of the written law of the land has led to a positive outcome for liberty. Well, I guess the Miranda case would qualify too.

    1. No love for Griswold? Lawrence? Any of the cases incorporating the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th Amendments?

      All of those were done by liberal judges and involved pretty radical, hard to justify in the text shifts in legal doctrine.

  17. I always find it interesting when there is a SSM thread that a few commenters will say things like “It’s a stealth increase in spending,”Putting force of government behind the definition of a word is libertarian as hell,” “government benefits for gay marriage” and “we’ve gotten so far away from the basic issue that the state is involved at all that I almost get physically ill when it gets written about here” when it is the SoCons opposing SSM which were the groups that fought to get the state involved in ‘fostering’ and ‘protecting’ their preferred version of marriage in the first place, and it is still the basis of their opposition to recognizing any other forms of marriage.

    Also interesting to see the significant overlap between those libertarians here who argue against SSM and those who oppose abortion and immigration.

    1. Bo got hold of our top-secret playbook, guys! We need to go back to our lair and ask Darth Vader to give us new talking points!

    2. when it is the SoCons opposing SSM which were the groups that fought to get the state involved in ‘fostering’ and ‘protecting’ their preferred version of marriage in the first place

      The people who oppose the state defining marriage also oppose the dreaded SOCONZ!!!(!!!)!!!! and their marriage definitions as well. Almost, uh, by fucking definition.

      “BUT HOW COULD ANYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH ME NOT BE A SOCON!!!!!(!!!!!)!!!!!!?????????”

      Nah, must be everybody else.

  18. I can see a libertarian position as removing the government from the defining and regulating of interpersonal relationships, but I sure don’t understand signing on for even more of them.

  19. That actualyl makes a lot of sense dude.

    http://www.RealAnon.tk

  20. I for one would like to see this issue resolved. It’s too late to move to a state in which the state has no standing to anoint who can and cannot marry.

    But the sooner that we can get these KULTUR WAR battles out of the way, the sooner we can focus on the important issues. I await the day when childless married gay couples realize that the proverbial honeymoon with the ability to marry is over, and TurboTax reports that they owe a fuck-ton of money in taxes.

    1. What’s your point?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.