Showing posts with label Anti Gay?. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Anti Gay?. Show all posts

April 1, 2019

Sentenced To Death and He is Gay~~Which It Might Be The Reason The Jury Went For ‘Execution'


                                  Image result for south Dakota jury sentences gay


 It was 1993, and a South Dakota jury was debating whether to sentence a gay man to death. Life in prison, one juror said, would be no punishment at all. Allowing the defendant, Charles Rhines, to spend his days surrounded by men would, the juror reasoned, be a kind of reward.

“If he’s gay, we’d be sending him where he wants to go,” the juror said, according to a 2016 sworn statement from Frances Cersosimo, who also served on the jury. She did not name the juror.

Another juror, Harry Keeney, said he was convinced that Mr. Rhines deserved to die for killing Donnivan Schaeffer, who encountered Mr. Rhines in 1992 while he was robbing a doughnut store in Rapid City, S.D. “We also knew he was a homosexual and thought he shouldn’t be able to spend his life with men in prison,” Mr. Keeney said in his own 2016 sworn statement.

A third juror, Bennett Blake, described the deliberations to an investigator. “There was lots of discussion of homosexuality,” he said. “There was a lot of disgust. This is a farming community.” 

The jury sentenced Mr. Rhines to death, and he has been on death row ever since. Over the years, he was represented by several sets of lawyers, who challenged his conviction and sentence on various grounds without success. It was not until 2015 that a new set of lawyers first tried to interview the jurors, obtaining statements from some of them in 2016.

Next week, the Supreme Court will consider whether to hear Mr. Rhines’s appeal, which asks the justices to rule that a biased jury deprived him of a fair trial.

Jury deliberations are ordinarily secret, and the Supreme Court has said that even egregious misconduct in the jury room cannot be used to challenge a conviction if it would require jurors to testify about what was said there.

But two years ago, in Peña Rodriguez v. Colorado, the court made an exception for racial bias during jury deliberations, saying that rooting it out was more important than keeping deliberations secret.

“Racial bias implicates unique historical, constitutional and institutional concerns,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority in the 5-to-3 decision. 

The dissenting justices said it would he hard to limit the sweep of the decision. Indeed, one of them, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., seemed to anticipate the question raised in Mr. Rhines’s case.

“What about sexual orientation?” Chief Justice Roberts asked when the Peña Rodriguez case was argued. “Somebody gives, you know, a bigoted speech in the jury room about sexual orientation and how particular types of people are more likely to commit crimes like the one before them? Is that sufficiently odious?”

In urging the Supreme Court not to hear Mr. Rhines’s case, Jason R. Ravnsborg, South Dakota’s attorney general, argued that racial bias was more serious than prejudice against gay men and lesbians. “Sexual orientation is not immutable to the same extent as race,” he wrote.

“No civil war has been fought over it,” he added. “No politician has ever proposed constructing a wall to keep homosexuals out of the country.”

Mr. Rhines’s jury appeared to have little doubt about his guilt.

But the jurors struggled to determine the right sentence, and they sent a note to the judge asking for help. “In order to award the proper punishment,” the note said, “we need a clear perspective of what ‘Life in Prison Without Parole’ really means.”

The note, signed by all 12 jurors, asked nine questions. A sample:

“Will Mr. Rhines be allowed to mix with the general inmate population?”

“Will Mr. Rhines be jailed alone or will he have a cellmate?”

“Will Mr. Rhines be allowed to marry or have conjugal visits?”

The judge did not answer, referring the jury to his earlier instructions, and the two sides now differ about whether the note was evidence of bias. Mr. Ravnsborg wrote, using unconventional spelling, that the last question was proof that the jury was “not phased by, or even convinced of, Rhines’s homosexuality.” 

“What jury conceived of gay marriage in 1992?” Mr. Ravnsborg asked. “And the fact that the jurors asked about Rhines’s access to conjugal visits with visitors from outside the prison walls also belies Rhines’s assertion that they believed prison would afford him a harem of male sexual companions.”

Mr. Rhines must clear a number of procedural hurdles if the Supreme Court is to hear his central claim, and those hurdles may make his case unattractive to the justices. Mr. Ravnsborg devoted most of his brief to discussing those procedural problems, which appear to be significant.

Mr. Ravnsborg also took issue with some of the evidence submitted by Mr. Rhines’s lawyers. He acknowledged that a state investigator had confirmed that “one juror made a joke that Rhines might enjoy a life in prison where he would be among so many men.” But another juror characterized the remark, the investigator wrote, as a “stab at humor” that “did not go over well.”

“The alleged juror comments here are not clear and explicit expressions of animus toward homosexuals,” Mr. Ravnsborg wrote. “At best, they fall into the category of an ‘offhand comment.’ ”



September 15, 2017

"I don't agree with the gay 'Lifestyle' but is their life" This is Passive Aggressive Anti Gay Language







We’ve all heard this before: “You know, I don’t agree with the gay lifestyle, but they can do what they want.” Setting aside the mystery of a homogenous ‘gay lifestyle,’ this seems harmless enough. It nearly communicates an important part of human compassion: recognizing personal differences and affirming them. The more I hear this sentiment, whether it’s floating through the air during the lunch rush in Rand at 12:05pm on a Wednesday or being irresponsibly thrown into a Hustler article, the more I am frustrated.

I have spent a long time grappling with the idea of political neutrality. And, to be clear, I’m not talking about my often-used, “I have not done my reading or research, so I do not feel qualified to speak on the subject.” I’m talking about a deliberate middle-ground.

Hard and fast, here’s the issue: Saying you don’t agree with the ‘gay lifestyle,’ however neutral you are in framing it, is oppressive.

Let me contextualize this with my own experiences. Back when I was in high school, I worked at a department store one summer. My coworkers, mostly older women, would talk to each other quite a bit during the lulls of the day. At the time, I identified myself as a lesbian, but I had told no one. One woman, who often teased me for not smiling at all times, was ranting about this ‘gay lifestyle’ I previously mentioned. She said that she doesn’t care if people are gay, but she doesn’t agree with it, and she doesn’t want any of those gays to rub their big gay lifestyles in her face. As a gay, self-conscious 18-year-old new hire, the woman’s prose told me one thing: I could never conceivably trust her enough to share my identity.

Now, imagine that situation, except it happens every one in ten interactions. As time goes on, you find more and more people untrustworthy, and the people you don’t know seem scary. If anyone knew what you were, surely terrible things would happen. Fear becomes the baseline for everything. At every moment, with every person, you are guarding yourself.

Imagine these people growing up and becoming CEOs, presidents and otherwise leaders. Imagine them becoming parents, teachers, doctors and lawyers. Suddenly, you’re not just dealing with a simple one-on-one interaction; instead, these people (along with their opinions and biases) are leading tens, hundreds, sometimes thousands of people. In some cases, these people are leading millions. Everyone around you now exists within and around structures created by people that abhor who you are and whom you love, but have managed to disguise it enough to save themselves from being labeled as discriminatory and bigoted .

So maybe that one-on-one interaction seems small, but not only can it expand. It can encircle society as a whole. Real political middle ground means genuinely caring about everyone involved, and declaring your tolerance without your acceptance is still harmful to my safety and wellbeing and that of the LGBTQI community. 

Examine your prejudices. Ask yourself why you feel the way you do. Challenge yourself to fight for the rights of people instead of priding yourself on not directly contributing to their marginalization, because political neutrality only allows institutional homophobia to worsen.

By Mac Ploetz -

Mac Ploetz
Mac Ploetz ('18) is majoring in Women's and Gender Studies. He is the 2017-18 President of the Vanderbilt Lambda Association, Vanderbilt's undergraduate gender, sexuality, and intersex alliance, and he's in his third year as a Sex Educator in Vandy Sex Ed. He has spent his time at Vanderbilt discovering and affirming his identity as a transgender person, and he works to help others affirm their identities as well. In his free time, Mac enjoys eating $30 worth of McDonald's and watching poorly-produced mid-2000s YouTube documentaries.

July 9, 2017

The Ways Trump Broke His Promises to the Gay Community





 Some Gay republican handed Trump the Rainbow Colors and he lifted the flag up. He said on is speech  "I will protect the our LGBTQ (He even mentioned the Q) 


 
Last summer on the campaign trail, President Donald Trump stood on a stage surrounded by American flags and spoke about the Pulse nightclub terrorist attack in Florida that claimed 49 lives. He promised to defend LGBTQ Americans. “As your president, I will do everything in my power to protect our LGBTQ citizens from the violence and oppression of a hateful foreign ideology,” Trump said.

Come January, the Trump administration reaffirmed this commitment. “President Donald J. Trump is determined to protect the rights of all Americans, including the LGBTQ community,” the White House statement said. “President Trump continues to be respectful and supportive of LGBTQ rights, just as he was throughout the election.” 

Yet so far his administration has taken sweeping steps to revoke legal protections for LGBTQ Americans. Pride month 2017 was marked by protests against Trump’s policies. The Daily Beast reported that thousands of queer Americans marched on Washington on June 11, many of them holding signs with slogans like “Trump Dooms Nation” and “I could be fired tomorrow.”

The Trump administration has rolled back several layers of workplace protection LGBTQ people used to have. For starters, Trump issued an executive order in March that repealed the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces order, made by former president Barack Obama in 2014. It required federal contractors to provide documented proof of compliance with federal laws, including prohibitions against discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. In January, the White House had specifically promised not to revoke this order. However, this was only one of many clear-cut promises Trump broke since he took office, including a guarantee that he would release his tax returns once he was no longer being audited. 

Yet another Obama-era protection the Trump administration nullified made LGBTQ youth more vulnerable at school. According to a 2015 Youth Risk Behavior Survey, 34% of LGBTQ students said they were bullied at school, and LGBTQ students have a much higher propensity for suicidal ideation and skipping school, often for safety reasons, compared to their straight peers. Despite the precarious situation LGBTQ youth still find themselves in, the Trump administration revoked federal guidelines that gave transgender students the right to use public school bathrooms that matched their gender identities in February.

Several members of the Trump administration, including attorney general Jeff Sessions, Education secretary Betsy DeVos, and press secretary Sean Spicer, referred to the move as defending “state’s rights,” The New York Times reported. Since then, several advocacy organizations such as the National Center for Transgender Equality and the National Education Association collaborated on a study to gauge what effect the repeal had on 150,000 transgender students nationwide. The survey found 70% of transgender students have gone out of their way to avoid using campus bathrooms, sometimes causing health issues like urinary tract infections and kidney problems. Many of them said they avoided eating and drinking during the day so they wouldn’t have to use the bathroom.
As public schools become less safe for queer students, private schools aren’t doing much better. Mother Jones reported DeVos refused to commit to cutting federal funds for private schools that discriminate against LGBTQ students, even when she was directly asked about the issue in a June Senate hearing.

Oregon Sen. Jeff Merkley responded to DeVos with clear disgust. “I think it’s important for the public to know that today the secretary of Education, before this committee, refused to affirm that she would put forward a program that would ban discrimination based on LGBTQ status of students or ban discrimination based on religion,” Merkley said.

From school to the workplace, few public spaces have been left untouched by the Trump administration’s policy shift. The Trump administration’s version of the Department of Health and Human Services survey for the elderly now suddenly omits questions about LGBTQ communities, which could negatively impact federal funding for the services elderly Americans rely on. “This was a stealth effort to strip LGBT[Q] elders out of the survey without anybody noticing,” Michael Adams, CEO of Services and Advocacy for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Elders, told NBC News.
Even some of the groups Trump is often outspoken about supporting, like military veterans and servicemen, are impacted by the administration’s unspoken stance against the LGBTQ community. 

The Military Times reported military leaders are now looking to roll back an Obama-era initiative that lifted the ban on enlisting transgender troops. Deputy Defense secretary Robert Work, who serves under Trump’s Defense secretary Gen. James Mattis, issued a memo in May about integrating transgender troops. According to USA Today, at least one expert said the memo’s language offered a loophole for departments to back out of protective provisions by questioning if the relatively new policy would hinder readiness for combat.

Meanwhile, Trump reportedly blocked @VoteVets, a pro-LGBTQ nonprofit veteran advocacy group, on Twitter and ignored Pride month traditions completely. Politico reported the Pentagon did not issue routine materials for LGBTQ Pride this year, the way it did for Women’s History Month and Black History Month.

“We are deeply disappointed to see that President Trump has not followed the tradition of issuing an LGBT[Q] Pride Month Proclamation for 2017,” Ashley Broadway-Mack, president of the American Military Partner Association, told Politico. “After decades of discrimination, today, LGBT[Q] service members proudly serve our nation openly — many with spouses and families proudly standing by their side.”

The White House hasn’t done a single thing this year to acknowledge Pride month, and reportedly ignored 30 BuzzFeed requests for an explanation regarding this break in tradition. Although the White House was uncharacteristically silent about LGBTQ issues in June, Trump did speak about protecting “family values” and defending “religious liberty” at the Road to Majority conference by the Faith and Freedom Coalition.

LGBTQ Nation called the event an “extremist” gathering hosted by “homophobic” groups. Trump praised evangelical leader James Dobson, who has called the movement for gay rights a “second civil war” and wrote a column suggesting it would be manly for people to take up arms against transgender women using public restrooms.

This should come as no surprise. Trump has also appointed several officials with a history of working against gay rights. Sarah Kate Ellis, CEO of the LGBTQ advocacy group GLAAD, said Trump has been “recruiting from a pool of the most vehemently anti-LGBTQ activists to run our great nation.” He hired James Renne as part of the transition team, then transferred Renne to a senior role at the Department of Agriculture, ProPublica reported. According to Pink News, Renne “purged gay employees” from the White House during George W. Bush’s presidency. A legal investigation published in 2013 proved that Renne’s campaign of workplace discrimination may have been motivated by a “negative personal attitude towards homosexuality.”

Trump also nominated Eric Dreiband to head the Justice Department's civil rights division, even though LGBTQ activists denounced Dreiband for his history of defending corporations against discrimination lawsuits. That’s right. The man literally in charge of civil rights discrimination cases built his legal career by fighting against plaintiffs in such cases. But he’s not the only 

Justice Department official with a history of hindering civil rights. CNN reported Sessions tried to ban an LGBTQ conference in Alabama long before he became Trump’s pick for attorney general.
During the last week of Pride month, Trump appointed Bethany Kozma to be the senior advisor to the Office of Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment at the U.S. Agency for International Development. Back in February, Kozma wrote a column about her instrumental role in pushing the Trump administration to repeal the guideline that protected transgender students in public school bathrooms.

There are dozens of ways Trump has broken his promise to defend the rights of LGBTQ communities. To make matters worse, the GOP healthcare plan will also put vulnerable LGBTQ communities at risk by slashing budgets for programs that disproportionately impact queer people, like affordable HIV testing at Planned Parenthood clinics and Medicaid provisions for HIV treatment. According to a 2014 Gallup study, around 25% of LGBTQ people struggled to afford healthcare, compared to 17% of heterosexual individuals. Despite Trump’s campaign promise to protect LGBTQ Americans from “hateful foreign ideology,” it appears some of the greatest risks to the freedoms they enjoy are right here at home.

Most of us don't believe Trump is anti Gay per say. He just doesn't care. He does care about making his base happy and part of his base are all types of evangelicals and very religious conservatives. They voted for him and he is gives them the people they like and recommend to him. A good example is nominating  someone who is worked against Equal rights and discrimination someone like Eric Dreiband who was nominated by Trump to Lead DOJ Civil Rights Division. 




April 6, 2014

In Gay Rights Bullies Cry Victim, example Andrew Sullivan Anti Gay-Gay

                                                       
    
In Andrew Sullivan’s assessment of Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich’s resignation, the former exec was “hounded” from his job by gay rights “fanatics.” But this was a business decision—and a revealing one.


Can you hear the piteous weeping? The wronged tears? Those poor bigots are under attack. Those who are prejudiced against gay people are having their constitutional right to say so trampled. It’s a terrible injustice: you can’t believe that gay people are lesser without some pesky homosexual objecting and “bullying” you into believing that equality under the law is a venerable aim. 
And so is heralded the latest trope in the saga of former Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich, who resigned after the controversy around his giving donations to a 2008 Proposition 8 campaign to retain a ban on gay marriage in California. Eich is now apparently the victim of an army of gay rights “fanatics,” rainbow pitchforks in hand, coursing across the land, seeking to quell any resistance to their sinister agenda that, ummm, gay people should be treated just like everyone else.
Even gay conservatives and contrarians are circling, licking their chops. In Andrew Sullivan’s reading of the Eich brouhaha, the former CEO has been severely wronged. His piece on the subject is headlined, “The Hounding of a Heretic,” as if there is something heroically counter-insurgent about someone who doesn’t believe gay people should be accorded legal equality. 
“Will he now be forced to walk through the streets in shame? Why not the stocks?” asked Sullivan. “The whole episode disgusts me—as it should disgust anyone interested in a tolerant and diverse society. If this is the gay rights movement today—hounding our opponents with a fanaticism more like the religious right than anyone else—then count me out. If we are about intimidating the free speech of others, we are no better than the anti-gay bullies who came before us.”
This stirring rhetoric has a few canards at its heart. Most obviously, “the anti-gay bullies who came before us” exercised the reins of power, either directly or indirectly. The “anti-gay bullies who came before us,” directly and indirectly fostered vicious prejudice, and created laws and disseminated fear accordingly. Today, when we call out homophobia, we may do so concertedly, but it is set squarely to correct injustice and inequality, not maintain it.
Gays did not “hound” Eich from his job. He gave money to a group seeking to obstruct equality for gay people. Years later, he got a high-profile job at Mozilla, a tech company in a professional community noted for its progressiveness. Naturally enough his background and beliefs were researched and his donation to the Prop 8 group was exposed. Inevitably, some people objected to that. Then he and Mozilla clearly came to a decision about his position with the company.
Why shouldn’t he have the right to those beliefs, say Eich’s defenders. Of course he has the right to them. He is also a high-profile public figure, and those who object to his beliefs have a right to state their objections.
Gay people didn’t hound Eich from his job. Eich resigned presumably because he and his company figured the bad publicity they were getting from this, and the financial knock-on on their business, would be adversely affected by the revelation of his Prop 8 donation.
While Mozilla went out of its way to emphasize its belief in inclusivity this week, Eich did not. Mozilla made the decision to fire Eich, gay people did not. The volubility of gay activists isn’t the point here, it’s the immense shift in corporate culture that means even a whiff of homophobia can be bad for business.
While there is nothing to celebrate in somebody losing their job, we should be celebrating that we have reached a time where homophobia is being questioned and challenged. Instead—please laugh or cry at this point—people bitch about their right to be homophobic being constrained.
This conflation of the bully-turned-to-victim neatly clouds the admirable baseline mainstream America is edging towards: the “shame” axis around homosexuality has positively shifted from those who are gay to those who are anti-gay.
Perhaps those conservatives bemoaning the fate of Eich will take a moment to consider the gay men and women, and those who are transgendered, who have lost jobs or been discriminated against because of their sexuality and sexual identity in the workplace. There is an almost laughable irony observing their defense of Eich’s homophobia, set against the inability of our policymakers to passENDA, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, into law.
After years of discriminating against gay people, after turning a blind eye to the violence inflicted upon them, to the inequality foisted upon them; after doing all they could to ensure all those bulwarks of prejudice remained firmly in place, the conservative right wing has decided the only remaining course of action is to play the victim.
The last argument that the opponents of equality are attempting to drive is an exhausted one: that gays are too loud, too demanding. Enough already. The right wing’s traditional anti-gay arguments—that homosexuality isn’t normal, that gay people are family-destroying freaks—now seem, to a broad mass of voters, what they always seemed to gay people: dangerous, insidious nonsense. A judge in Michigan stated that their arguments against marriage equality were irrational and absurd.
Now that the law, belatedly and slowly, is beginning to treat gay people as equal citizens, the only recourse opponents have is that they—the real bullies—are themselves being bullied. Of course, “bullying” is an over-used word, an overplayed accusation, and it is most galling when used by those who know historically how to wear their knuckledusters with pride. Most recently, Michele Bachmann claimed gays had “bullied” the American people and politicians.
The sad thing is to see this misnomer being promulgated by gays themselves. How does Sullivan, when he bemoans the activists who got on Mozilla’s case, think the strides towards equality were achieved in the first place? Long before the suits of the Human Rights Campaign got involved, change was demanded by gay men and women furious that their civil rights were being disrespected, most famously crystallized on the night of the Stonewall Riots.
A quite natural, absolutely correct anger—think of Reagan’s shameful AIDS ignorance—underpins gay activism. Equality is now so long overdue, yet still elusive, that anger inevitably flares when an example like Eich and Mozilla presents itself. Eich’s lack of personal response to the controversy exacerbated the anger.
Eich is not a brave “heretic.” His prejudiced views are simply not those a company like Mozilla wants to be associated with. Eich wasn’t badgered or bullied from his job. He was shamed out of it. And the shame wasn’t his, it seems because he’s had very little to say about the matter—but rather his employer’s. All of this is ugly, for sure. But a belief in, and practice of, equality is not. If we aspire to that personally and legislate for it publicly, the ugliness will dissipate.

June 16, 2013

New Survey Tell Us Israel "Being Our Friend” Not True! The Opposite of What Their Leaders told us and We Believed


For a number of years, Tel Aviv has been considered one of the most liberal cities in the world and the gay capital of the Middle East. Both the Israeli public and the media have shown increasing openness and acceptance toward the LGBT community. But data from the American Pew Research Center show another side.

According to a comprehensive survey conducted by the institute in 39 countries, only 40 percent of Israelis believe society should accept homosexuality, while 47 percent believe the opposite. This figure is lower than in any other Western, developed country surveyed, with the exception of South Africa.

Thousands attend the Gay Pride Parade in Tel Aviv on June 7.   photo/ap-oded balilty
Thousands attend the Gay Pride Parade in Tel Aviv on June 7. photo/ap-oded balilty
Still, Israel is the most accepting country toward gays in the Middle East.
The survey, which sampled 37,653 respondents across the globe between March 2 and May 1, proved once again that tolerance toward homosexuality is higher when religion plays a smaller role in the life of the population.

The study also shows greater tolerance toward LGBT individuals among young people globally; in a substantial number of the countries, women are more tolerant than men.

According to the study, the country most accepting of gays is Spain, where 88 percent of the respondents said society should accept homosexuals. Within the European Union, Spain was followed by Germany (87 percent), the Czech Republic (80 percent), France (77 percent) and the UK (76 percent). Even in Italy, where religion is perceived as playing a major role in life, 74 percent of those questioned responded in the affirmative.
Conservative Greece had a 53 percent affirmation rate.

Among the more tolerant countries were Canada (70 percent support) and the U.S. (60 percent) for North America; and Argentina (74 percent), Chile (68 percent), Mexico (61 percent) and Brazil (60 percent) in Latin America. The Asian Pacific countries had mostly negative responses, but outstanding among these were Australia (79 percent) and the Philippines (73 percent).
The vast majority of respondents in Islamic countries were opposed to acceptance of homosexuals: 97 percent in Jordan, 95 percent in Egypt, 94 percent in Tunisia and 93 percent in the Palestinian Authority and Indonesia. Even in Turkey, a developed country largely considered Western in its ideals, 78 percent of the population opposes homosexuality.

According to the study, tolerance among secular Jews in Israel is more than twice that of people who described themselves as traditional, religious or haredi (61 percent vs. 26 percent). Only 2 percent of Muslims in Israel said they support the acceptance of homosexuals.

In most of the countries surveyed, no significant differences were found between the responses of men and women. But Israel was different. According to the Pew Institute, there is a 17 percent gap between men’s and women’s views on the subject in the Jewish state (48 percent of women believe homosexuals should be accepted, compared with 31 percent of men).

Almost all Western countries surveyed experienced significant improvement in acceptance since the last survey. South Korea experienced a substantial rise of 21 percent, followed by the U.S. (plus 11 percent), Canada (plus 10 percent) and Italy (plus 9 percent). Interestingly, in the PA this time, there was a 5 percent decrease in tolerance toward gays and lesbians.

ynetnews.com

On this list Israel is posted but what we are contending to day is that they are not the friend they said they were even if the government have done gay friends mutual beneficiaries deeds.

At least 31 countries currently allow residents to sponsor gay and lesbian permanent partners for legal immigration, including: Andorra, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Japan, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. -  

Featured Posts

Good Morning Sunday:Dutch Gay penguin Steals Egg From Another Couple Now Trying To Hatch it

  JORDAN HIRST Stock photo of African penguins. Photo: Charles J Sharp/Wikimedia Commons A gay penguin couple at a Nethe...