all views are welcome, let's use two wings to soar!

Would Jesus counsel gay people?

In Church and State on November 18, 2009 at 12:35 pm

A hot potato fell in our lap this week, as the Roman Catholic Church in Washington DC is asking the city to change a same-sex marriage law or they will pull out of the city. As a reasonable Christian, I must ask myself the simple question, “What Would Jesus Do?” 

The church provides valuable resources to over 68,000 people in the city, in the form of food and shelter. It is a frightening prospect to consider what those people would do without the aid of the church. 

The church is concerned that the law will require them to perform gay marriages and give adoption counseling to gay couples. Homosexuality goes against their church teaching. At what point does church and state separate? 

This is a conundrum to be certain, but my opinion is that the church is being unreasonable and un-Christ-like. I could debate the sinfulness of homosexuality but for the purpose of this essay, I will concede to their belief. Instead, I will refer to scripture. “For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God;” (Romans 3:23) and “…He lifted up himself, and said to them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone…” (John 8:7). 

In other words, there is not a single person in the church who is without sin. Nobody. If we deny church services to sinners, the pews would be empty. Neither would there be anyone to preach or share God’s word. We all sin. 

Additionally, the church is worrying about what “may” happen, which is that they would have to provide marriage and adoption services to gay couples. The Catholic Church does not have to marry any couple that comes before them, hence the Pre Cana counseling required prior to a Catholic marriage. 

 Honestly, what kind of masochistic gay person would want to receive services or counseling about marriage or adoption from the Catholic church? Nothing stops the church from counseling as it sees fit, or asking the church to preach against their tenets, so in this theorized place of concern when gay couples seek help from the Catholic Church for marriage or adoption, the church could advise against it.   

Ship captains, justices of the peace, even Las Vegas chapels, in addition to ministers, perform marriage. Marriage is a legal contract, which may or may not be blessed by a church. The minister or priest acts as a servant of the state, filling out the proper forms and sending them to the local municipality. Prior to Martin Luther translating the Bible to German, churches performed civil services and kept birth and death records because literacy was abysmally low. Generally, only the priests and monks were able to read and write.  

These are only a few of the reasons I think the Church should reconsider their stance. To hurt so many and judge based on non-events would seem quite the opposite of “What Jesus Would Do?” 

What do you think?

Share

Advertisements
  1. I am just wondering what the church does with their pedophile priest?

    “These are only a few of the reasons I think the Church should reconsider their stance.”

    Gawd, look how many people were burned at the stake and how long it too them to concede that the earth is round and not the center of the universe.

  2. Now I didn’t mean for this to be an anti-Catholic post, but rather a way they could reconsider their threat without compromising the church opinions about homosexuality.

  3. I read the Post article and I can see the Church’s point. There appears to be enough leverage in the ordinance to require the Church to do things they fundamentally do not believe in. The Church, and BTW I am not a member, does not ordain same-sex marriage. PERIOD
    Now then, How can they be required by the City to change their beliefs just to accomodate that of the City? The City is certainly no moral example of anything. Several of the arguments put forth by the City people mention the money given the Church regarding it’s work within the City. If I am not mistaken that money only passes through the hands of the Church in its carrying out of the services offered residents of the City and, in fact, is augmented by yet another approximate $ 10 Mil coming from the Diocese. So the “… we’re giving you City money so you have to do things our way…” just doesn’t fly with me. The Church offers to help those in need within the parameters of being the Church and its beliefs. Apparently those helped by the Church are benefitted. The politicians are saying in essence, we are not happy with the way You, the Church, are benefitting all these people in our fine city. We, the all-knowing political leaders want you to stop doing things according to your beliefs, things which we have enjoyed up to now and things which have helped many within our community to date, and we want you to now do things (not for profit things and things that actually cost you the Church a great deal of money and time) OUR way.
    So, I guess my query would be, just who is the loser here? The Church? Those in the City who have benefitted for so long? The City? Look, what the Church does appears to be something the City would rather not have to do. The City appears, up to this point, to be happy allowing the Church to dispense City funds along with it’s own in doing some good. WHAT the church believes is not subject to change just because SOME in the City have done so. It seems a majority were happy to accept the generosity of the Church in funds and administering these services when “gay marriage” was not an issue.

  4. Regarding this piece; “separation of church and state… a conundrum”? Constitutionally speaking, the state shall make no law respecting religion. It’s purpose was intended to keep the state from being in the religion (state sponsored) business. I find no conundrum therein. I think it is pretty clear.

    The Church is being “un-Christ-like”? Your choice of scriptures is perhaps a bit self serving. Pauls statement is pretty much simple truth and you get no argument from me there. Regarding Jesus’ admonition about casting the first stone, true enough for you and me on the surface but let’s continue the context. What did he tell the adultress when her accusers had left? “Go, and sin no more”.

    Now, regarding “marriage”. Marriage is ordained of God. We humans I think have gotten all wound up in semantics and call almost any living condition a “marriage”. Judges, sea captains, and gum machine ministers at wedding chapels perform civil unions where two people commit to each other. A true marriage, in my humble opinion, is when a man and a woman go before the altar of God and commit to HIM and to each other that they “twain shall shall henceforth be one” forsaking all others.

  5. But you still do not answer the question. What would Jesus say/do/counsel? Would He turn them away? Would He turn away others to prove his point?

    What do you think Jesus would do here? To me that is the only answer. If being a Christian is about acting Christlike, we must choose from His words and model our actions accordingly.

    So I query again, how would Jesus handle this?

  6. “Fearful that they could be forced, among other things, to extend employee benefits to same-sex married couples, church officials said they would have no choice but to abandon their contracts with the city. ”

    Just how many same sex marriage participants work for the Catholic church ? Anyone ? Bueller ?
    Curious.

    I scoured the article for more possible consequences of this push to grant basic human rights to US citizens. I found none. Are there some other ramifications beyond what’s mentioned above. Surely there must be. This is the same Catholic church that sent, and still sends, missionaries hither in yon to spread ‘God’s’ word. Some of these places are terrifically dangerous….and they are worried about worried what MIGHT happen to the ‘multitudes’ of their married, gay employees ? Couldn’t they simply shuffle these employees around like they did/do pedophile priests ? The solution seemed to work just fine for that, far more complex problem.

    The RCC response is pretty pathetic, and par for the course when it comes to the RCC. They operate FAR more like mafioso than messengers from God. Wouldn’t they be surprised to find the afterlife run by a no nonsense, non white, lesbian who’s got some ‘pointy’ questions to be answered.

    The RCC’s actions in this and many other cases are not Christ like, but they sure are ‘Christian’; a term that increasingly means bigoted, closed minded, and mentally lethargic to a fault.
    ….and THATS sad.

  7. Hawken,
    Think again.
    It’s not ‘clear’, and your thinking that it is so is confusing. The lines between services the state provides is being blurred with what religious organizations provide. Your bias is showing- no sin there btw, mine’s out all the time.

    If by ‘Christ like’ you mean sharing gifts only with those who look like you, believe what you believe, and live the way you live, consider learning a bit (quite a bit) more about this Jesus you claim to follow. He hung out with the unpopular, socially inexpedient folks and did so ON PURPOSE. It’s that purpose that seems to have been lost to the corruption and ignorance of so many of his followers.

    Your cherry picking of the already cherry picked story of Jesus is truly what is self serving here. What is it that is so frightening to you about gays ? Are they not God’s children, or is this, too, another gang for which only those like you can belong ? Do tell.

    I’m not understanding your fixation on homosexuality as opposed to adultery. How many marriages (these events ordained by none other than God) fail because of that sin ? How is adultery not as bad a sin as homosexuality appears to be, especially since it destroys what, according to you, God has ‘ordained’? Is God not ‘fair and balanced’ ?

    Standing by.

  8. I would expect Jesus to welcome the homosexual with open arms.

  9. If the city IS administering the services, then why are we even discussing the Church? I beieve I read that the Church is running these programs in lieu of the City and is doing so with Church funds as well as City funds. That is my understanding of “faith-based” initiatives and I my impression of what I read in this case. If the City is relying upon the Church for much of this work and funding the caveate for that agreement would be that it be done within the limits under which the Church must work. IF the City does not want to do it that way, and they may decide not to, then they as the City are certainly free to take on the entire responsibility themselves. That seems fairly clear to me, unless I simply misread the piece.

    Jesus did indeed “hang out” with every sort of sinner. How many of those sinners did he counsel to remain in their sinful lifestle? Time and again his words were, “your sin is forgiven, GO AND SIN NO MORE”. I have my own sinful lifestyle I must deal with daily. If I argue that MY sin is not really sin, that doesn’t make it true, nor does it justify my redefining the rules to accomodate MY sin. I am a sinner and that is that. Since we are discussing Christians and their beliefs here I would assume we must then also approach any discussion from their Biblcal basis. I have yet to find anywhere therein where homosexuality and/or same sex marriage is justified. I am aware of several places where it is spoken of as sinful behavior. That is the Christian frame of reference.

    Now, as far as your accusation of my anti-gay bias. I find nothing I have written thus far to indicate any fear of or hatred of gays. Quite the opposite happens to be the case in truth. I accept every man on his merits of character. Each of us is one of God’s children in all our frailties. Each of us will at some time answer for our lives and our actions. We are accountable only for our own life. I do have a problem with “christians” who constantly harangue me to change MY life to accomodate their beliefs. I have the same problem with those who seek to redefine marriage to accomodate theirs. Logistically speaking, I think we need a civil union for those who choose that, which will allow for the social and civil rights of gay couples.

    My understanding of God, through the Bible, is that, to answer your question, NO, he is not fair and balanced. He made the rules. He also made the promises. His promises have always been, If we follow the rules, then we can claim his promises. I am failing to understand your accusatory tone about “my” fixation upon homosexuality as opposed to adultery. My understanding is that sin is sin. Man, in the form of the early church, began to place degrees of seriousness upon sins. Jesus, in the New Testament is quoted as saying that if we even consider a sinful act in our mind, we have already committed it. One sin is no more “sinful” than another. Some certainly may be more heinous than others. I believe that grading sins has gotten much of Christianity into many messes. Scripture simply does not bear that approach out.

  10. My understanding is that sin is sin. Man, in the form of the early church, began to place degrees of seriousness upon sins. Jesus, in the New Testament is quoted as saying that if we even consider a sinful act in our mind, we have already committed it. One sin is no more “sinful” than another. Some certainly may be more heinous than others. I believe that grading sins has gotten much of Christianity into many messes.

    And so we come full circle. This was my original point. Why is the sin of homosexuality being used as a justification? Why isn’t the sin of sloth or gluttony or drug abuse, or or or… If a sin is a sin (and I already conceded that it was)… AND we are all sinners… WHY is this placed on a worse degree?

  11. “The church is concerned that the law will require them to perform gay marriages and give adoption counseling to gay couples. Homosexuality goes against their church teaching. At what point does church and state separate?”

    So, Kim, are you suggesting that the Catholic Church deny their beliefs in order to accomodate a few in the City? Your piece indicates WHAT the Church believes. The Church believed that long before the first person in DC was ever served by them. The City knew what the beliefs of the Church are before this ever came up. They were very happy to accept the charity of the Church before it became an issue. Your argument seems to be against the beliefs of the Church and they should change their beliefs. All this concern over which sin is worse is moot. The issue as you expressed it seems to be the concern held by the Church that this law could require them to change their own closely held beliefs and practices. Whether you agree with the beliefs/practices or not, how can you ask or require the Church to change those beliefs/practices to accomodate your own beliefs?

  12. As to the original question: WWJD? I am still pondering. I see two sides to this question and I don’t profess know the answer. It is not as simple for me as looking only at one side of Jesus life and professing “that” is what I think he would do. True enough, Jesus taught us to be our brothers keeper and not to condemn each other. He also told us to “render unto Caesar that which is Caesars…” In this instance I think he comes down strongly in favor of helping those in need.

    IF we accept the Catholic beliefs as true Jesus doctrine for the sake of discussion, then where is he going to come down on the potentialty of “Ceasar”, in the form of the City, REQUIRING Catholic officials to CHANGE HIS DOCTRINE in order to continue serving the community of needy? I don’t believe Jesus would say, “Yeah, go ahead, change my doctrine, change MY rules to accomodate Caesar.” Admittedly, I really have no answer for this. The question you asked goes way beyond the simplistic grading of sins and who is a sinner and who is not.

    My own sinful nature tells me to do as much good as I can do for as many and for as long as I can. When some temporal authority comes along and tells me I can no longer do the good I have done unless I change the way I “know” to be true, I am going to be saddened by the loss but I fail to see a way for me to CHANGE my “true beliefs” to accomodate the beliefs of a few who do not hold them dear.

    This is not a new problem BTW. I have worked for years with the Boy Scouts of America. This same thing has happened to them is more than one place. It has cost the organization and the boys it serves, all for the self interest of a few.

    I will continue to ponder this in search of perhaps a better answer.

  13. Kenny,
    Thanks….it gives me a headache sometimes. I’m told I’m not the only one 🙂

    Hawken,
    We are discussing this because the RCC has decided to try to leverage the denial of basic human rights simply because it can, to the detriment of thousands of others who rely on what the RCC has provided for years. Why the RCC simply can’t shuffle their gay and lesbian employees out of DC is truly beyond me. It served them to do this with pedophile priests for decades, why not with this issue ? Contrast this with the teachings and life of Jesus, tell me what YOU come up with.

    Your interpretation of Jesus is that Jesus hung out with sinners only to forgive their sins if they agreed to sin no more. Even the most devout Christians readily admit they still sin, so this interpretation makes no sense to me. What am I missing here ?

    I get that you do not like folks trying to tell you what is a sin and what is not a sin. I imagine gay and lesbian Christians know EXACTLY what you are talking about. You mention your own sinful nature yet you cannot see the duplicity in how you are treated for your sins as opposed to the alleged sins of homosexuality. For example, you can be married in ‘the church’, gays and lesbians cannot. Rationalize please, given your comment “My understanding is that sin is sin.”

    It’s not surprising to me that you don’t see your anti gay bias, that’s why I’m telling you about it. Explain why adulterers marry and remarry in the church ? Is it that no adulterers work in the RCC ? If not, then why do you not support withholding adulterers rights to receive employee benefits…or is this actually something you DO support ? Regardless, it appears, in real dollars,cents and real lives, that one sin IS worse than the other, and that you are just fine with this reality. Again, do explain.

    You, and much of Christianity, seem to have a problem with gays and lesbians. You don’t have the same problem with those who commit adultery, not to the extent that you’d exert the same focus and energy to ensure they remain apart from this agape love you claim to have found. I’m asking “why the difference?” I ask this of you specifically, but I also ask you why it’s also the case with so much of ‘Christianity’.

    God not fair and balanced, huh ? Faux News apparently has pulled off that which God cannot 😉 Not sure just how I feel about that…..

    Your God needs therapy.
    The description of God I’ve just read from you is one of a manic depressive with control issues suffering from NPD- Narcissistic Personality Disorder:
    “A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy.”
    Create a perfect world, put humans into it, give them free will, then punish them (all of them, forever) for rules the original folks scarcely understood. That makes God an idiot. That doesn’t wash with all this amazingly complex stuff I’m surrounded by.

    So far as civil union vs marriage goes, it matters little what you or I think, religiously speaking. Marriage is a legal proceeding, your religious beliefs, Christian or otherwise, hold no sway.

    Standing by……

  14. Jesus would not stop helping people, because of a political issue.

  15. A very wise Christian woman once stated to me regarding the frailness of the human condition, “love the sinner, hate the sin.”

    While I profess my Christianity, with it’s “fashionable” tendencies and interpretation largely subjective, I rely on faith to deliver on HIS plan.

    I may not understand the means. I may not agree with the condition. It is not for me to “know it all.” Yet, I have faith.

    I do know the details of the actions of the RCC. I do know there is ALWAYS more to the story. Outwardly, I may not agree with the posturing that was stated. Still, I have faith…

    Would Jesus counsel gay people? Undoubtedly, yes.

  16. ….and Hawken,
    Don’t delude yourself into thinking that the RCC is adverse to changing it’s beliefs to suit itself. It’s a trait that they have exhibited “long before the first person in DC was ever served by them.”
    They do so today.
    I’ve little reason to believe they will not do so tomorrow.
    ‘Tis their history.

  17. WWJD? Well, let me pull out all that he said about homosexuality. So far we have…

    Yep. Nuttin’. You’d think with 12 dudes running around, there’d be some talk of man on man love. Yet, no. Just that annoying “I have but one commandment for you. Love one another as I have loved you.”

    But that’s far too difficult, so there are many Christians who are actually Paulists, clinging to Leviticus (ignoring all those orders to stone children and neighbors for back talk and crop mixing, naturally) like a child to a blankie. Protect me from the gay sex, and I’ll call it Christ-like! But, I digress.

    Here’s a tidbit y’all might not know–I used to work for Catholic Charities. They have the LEGAL RIGHT to discriminate in hiring on the basis of race, sex, sexual orientation, and religious belief all while claiming they are an Equal Opportunity Employer. How jacked is that? There’s a specific loophole in the law that allows them to get away with it. They also routinely engaged in illegal behavior, using their belief system as a justification. For instance, you can’t take HUD money and subject those living in HUD-supporting housing to religious regulations. But they did it regularly.

    This is not a dig on the Catholic Church–I’m just stating the facts. Catholics do a great deal of good work in the world, no doubt.

    The church isn’t really worried about anything but losing government funds in this instance. If HUD ever found out that my former employer kicked women out on the streets for religious reasons, their funding would be revoked. (As it should be.) So, they lied to donors and the government to maintain that funding. They are worried that folks who actually have power–gays who want to marry–will be able to exert legal power that the poor can’t.

    But the jig is b.s. They have legal loopholes and protections when it comes to providing NON-CHARITABLE services. Beyond the fact that their entire argument is about a fear of a loss of government funding based on the slippery slope argument (a logical fallacy and therefore invalid, I might add). If X happens, then Y “may” happen. It’s a load of crap. Blatant, manipulative, dishonest crap.

    They know damn good and well they will not be legally required to do gay weddings, etc. There will be restrictions on select portions of government funds IF they want to take them for general operating or non-charitable purposes, because there are ALWAYS lots and lots of strings attached to government funds. You know what Habitat for Humanity’s solution to such restrictions are? Don’t take the government money. Pretty simple. Other non-profits and school systems do without and they don’t have the kind of donor base that the Catholic Church has. And not one of them has threatened to stop helping people as a result.

    Granted, the Catholic Church has severe financial problems due to their massive corruption issues. So, they are probably more worried about the loss of funds, but that’s what happens when you screw up. It hurts. Don’t want to hurt? Don’t protect pedophiles for decades and then lie about it.

    This is just another leg in the long march for human rights. People are still desperately trying to justify separate but equal as a truthful ideology. Would Jesus be standing next to the church, prattling on about how it’s his right to marginalize a segment of the population based on perceived lifestyle and Paul’s idiocy after Christ’s death and resurrection? Would he take his healing powers away because Caesar wouldn’t give him a quarter if he decided to stop healing lepers? Doubtful. “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s.” Jesus shunned Jewish fundamentalist law all the time in favor of bringing marginalized segments of the population back into the fold of our human family. I doubt very seriously that he would clamor to hate in the modern era, despite his followers’ love of Paul, Leviticus and their own fear and insecurity.

  18. Hawken, you state “Whether you agree with the beliefs/practices or not, how can you ask or require the Church to change those beliefs/practices to accommodate your own beliefs?”

    Because it’s the law. It has nothing to do with “belief.” There were many churches who wanted to ban those “n!ggers” from their pews and charitable activities, but couldn’t keep doing it if they wanted government funds for their social service programs. If you want government money, you have to follow the law. Don’t want to follow the law? Don’t take the funds. That way you can keep whatever segment of the population you want to hate out of your shiny church. Easy as pie.

    This is tantamount to trying to reinstate Jim Crow laws because a select verse in the book of Mormon refers to blacks in a derogatory manner.

    Speaking of moot points, their argument is a load of crap, AKA moot point. They have legal protections currently in place regarding non-charitable services. They just want to keep the money without worrying about the *potential* of lawsuits (even those without legal merit, because they cost money regardless), since they are already mired in them.

    On a personal note, if they want to stop helping people because the city won’t give them funding if they refuse to follow the law, then I would appreciate it if they wouldn’t put “Christ” anywhere in their identity. It’s antithetical at best. Call it the Catholic Church of Paul, but leave Jesus out of it. If you can’t carry the weight of the cross, don’t pick it up.

  19. I just can’t shut up…

    Robi, you are hilarious. If you live anywhere near SoCal, we are going to need to grab a coffee one of these days!

    • Agreed, Robi’s point of view is poignant and funny.

    • CF gets big hilarity points for this one:

      WWJD? Well, let me pull out all that he said about homosexuality. So far we have…

      Yep. Nuttin’. You’d think with 12 dudes running around, there’d be some talk of man on man love. Yet, no. Just that annoying “I have but one commandment for you. Love one another as I have loved you.”

  20. Thanks to Kim and Cara! This is fun stuff.

  21. Kenny,
    Again, thx…I’d have to cry if I didn’t find a way to laugh.

    Consciously,
    UGH !
    I just moved from there in 2008 ;( Me must compare notes.
    My degree of disgust with the RCC’s current chapter of shame was based on everything BUT current law. I had no idea the legalities behind what you said existed. Fascinating…THANKS ! I’ve truly learned something today.
    I appreciate the direct correlation you draw between how gays and lesbians are being treated now and how my ancestors were treated in the days of Jim Crow, church fires, and government sanctioned racism ( yesterday actually, in certain parts of Louisiana). Many of the same things said of homosexuals today were said about blacks not so long ago. Blacks can’t fly, they don’t possess the mental capacity. Blacks are lousy soldiers, mixing races will doom us all.
    So I’d better get back to studying up for my new acft before I embark on the field training exercise that takes me away from my white wife this weekend 😉
    …and that’s called PROGRESS.
    I digress.

    The point is that it never has been a gay rights issue, a black rights dilemma, an immigrant’s rights problem, or women’s equality struggle. I’ve learned, slowly, that any ‘ism’ is simply racism against the HUMAN race. It’s a human rights issue.
    Thanks again for the insight !

  22. Hawken, you stated your case without resorting to harsh accusations. I’m always impressed by people who can do that and as such, try to emulate it whenever I can. Let me also say that I think you’ve found the essence of the conflict when you wrote:

    “The Church offers to help those in need within the parameters of being the Church and its beliefs. Apparently those helped by the Church are benefitted. The politicians are saying in essence, we are not happy with the way You, the Church, are benefitting all these people in our fine city. We, the all-knowing political leaders want you to stop doing things according to your beliefs, things which we have enjoyed up to now and things which have helped many within our community to date, and we want you to now do things (not for profit things and things that actually cost you the Church a great deal of money and time) OUR way.”

    Not that there isn’t merit in highlighting the faults of the RCC or the ways in which doctrine has been used to suppress human rights or whether Jesus would do this or that, because all of those topics are important to discuss in conjunction with a proper analysis of the conflict between the RCC and Washington. However, I think you grasp the fact that those discussions are not the factors determining the outcome of this situation, nor should they be. Why? Because the answer resides in the parameters of church and state first and foremost. Once it is determined where those parameters exist, then the other discussions have a forum in which they can accurately take place.
    You get that and I for one appreciate the analysis. Just as The Church must not be allowed to legislate, The State must not be allowed to rewrite doctrine. If believers disagree with Church doctrine, then the revolt for change must start there. It is a matter of proper procedure so as to keep our institutions in tact, both religious and secular. For the sake of both, we need to restrain our institutions from operating outside of their given roles. (And for those who would like to site Lincoln as proof that government must be used as a force for equality against a biased church-community, please consult your history books. The fight for equality began with fiery faith-filled abolitionists shouting from the pulpits long before Lincoln jumped on the bandwagon. Please feel free to consider this blog as one of those pulpits but I think Kim would agree with the request to refrain from vilifying your fellow commentators. We’re all in this together.)

  23. I agree wholeheartedly: this is a great piece that makes the perfect concession to either side. Although I must say – and I haven’t read any of the comments above, so this is a direct response to your text – I believe that the bible opposed homosexuality because, 2000 years ago when there weren’t many people around, it threatened our propagation. If all the men laid with all the men, we’d have no babies. I know it sounds ridiculous, but it’s the only explanation. Now we have 6.5 billion people on the planet, and plenty of kids to adopt, it’s time to revise the position. It’s time to download an update and let’s have equality for all people.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: