Joe Biden's Big Adventure: The G20 Climate Summit and Meeting with Pope Francis

It seems we've entered a new stage of insanity as we go deeper and deeper into this dystopian rabbit hole. Take for example climate change.  We've been berated by Democrats and those on the Left for at least a decade about the dangers of global warming (rebranded under the name of "climate change").

 So, why is it that Biden goes to Scotland for an all important convocation of world leaders to discuss about climate change, and what do we see? Biden snoozing for all the world to see! True, he made a speech on climate change at the COP26 meeting which was far from inspiring as well as the usual glad handing and picture posing.

 Much of what he said has been said before, and as usual, ignored afterwards. We all know that nothing, and I mean nothing, will happen, at least in the United States, without the support of the corporate giants who just so happen to own the government. Besides, unless the world's worse polluter, China, isn't a 100% onboard and willing to put its yen where its mouth is, nothing anyone else does will amount to a hill of beans. 75% of all its lakes and waterways are unfit for human usage and wearing masks is common in the cities because of pollution which is six times world health standards.

China has the economic clout to completely derail any realistic chance to curtail climate change unless the West and other industrialized nations acquiesce to what it wants when it wants it. Key to its potential list of demands for any actual compliance to "clean up its act" would be cutting support of Taiwan and quite possibly "looking away" should Beijing decide to "incorporate" the island nation back into the fold.  Imagine how that would affect America's already damaged prestige abroad.

China, while not quite a global superpower on par with the U.S. is still too powerful economically and militarily to be bullied or intimidated by anyone, including the U.S.. At the same time, attempts by U.S. "chicken hawks" to rekindle the Cold War with Russia through sanitations, and propaganda, is only driving Russia closer to the China. Given Europe's dependence on Russian oil and gas, is that really a good idea? Besides, Russia is potentially the better friend where our dealings with China is concerned. 

Along with abandoning Taiwan, accepting the South China Sea as de facto Chinese territorial waters would be another demand.  I wouldn't be surprised if China also demanded concessions from the other power in the region. Both nations has engaged in posturing and the occasional gunplay along their common border for several years.

China has also become closer pals with India's archenemy to the west, Pakistan.  This present an obvious potential double edge sword given Pakistan's deep Islamic roots and connections to terrorist groups and China's troubles with its Uyghur Muslim population in the Xinjiang Province and "rumors" of some Uyghurs being imprisoned in concentration camps. The same can be said of China's and Iran's strategic arrangement, which may be based more on the idea of common enemy, the U.S., than anything substantial.

China's fishing fleet (with naval support) has also been inserting itself in India's traditional sovereign waters. It's also affected other nations dependant on sea harvests to feed their people and bolster their economies. The worst part of the Chinese intrusion is that they typically use huge shipping vessels which can scoop up more in a single catch than local fisherman catch in a year.  

The result is a depleted environment with fewer profitable catches, smaller fish, lobsters, and so forth. If this is allowed to continue, you'll see the economies of nations like Japan, India, both Koreas, the Philippines, and Indonesia deeply affected thanks to higher prices for less available fish---the staple of their diets, and the grim possible of rising poverty and even starvation if not curtailed. 

As an aside, China has also been busy buying up options on natural mineral resources throughout the world, most notably Africa and Latin America along with the rights to fresh water sources (not unlike a few American corporations). It's worth noting that they pay little concern to the environmental damage they cause. With what all that is at stake, you'd think Biden would want to take his naps elsewhere or have someone more "awake" sitting in on these discussions.

Another (we'll call it "interesting") episode took place just before the climate conference, and that was Biden's meeting with Pope Francis in Vatican City, ahead of the G20 Summit and his meeting with France's Macron. Biden, as most people know, is a devout Catholic which makes his stand, as a Democrat, on abortion rather precarious. Some conservative bishops have been calling for Biden's exclusion from communion because of it.

The meeting, Biden's fourth with Pope Francis, but first as President, started off with his usual tired old quip ("Hi, I'm Jill's husband"). Biden presented the Pope with a gold coin depicting the Seal of the United States on one side and outline of Delaware on the other and "the 261st unit" his son had served with (the 261st is a tactical signal brigade which provides command and control to other units).

Officially, the meeting had been scheduled to discuss  a variety of issues ranging from climate change, poverty, the COVID pandemic, and global economics. However rumors persisted that Biden's real agenda concerned whether or not he would receive communion. The Vatican has declined to comment.

It's should be pointed out that the 75 minute meeting (unusually long by Vatican standards) was to be televised live but for some reason, was shut down about halfway in without any comment beyond the Pope and Biden wanting to discuss issues "informally"...but that's not all that allegedly happened.

According to a tweet from Amy Tarkanian, the former Nevada Republican State Chairwoman and wife of Republican Attorney Danny Tarkanian, the meeting with the Pope ran usually long because...how to say this politely...President Biden had a "bathroom incident" which had to be dealt with first.  Ms. Tarkanian even managed to post a picture to backup her tweet. Almost instantaneously, the tweet and the picture went viral. Not unexpectedly, comments (and snarky remarks) poured in.

Here's the problem as I see it. While I'm not a big fan of "Slow Joe" by a long shot, we need to remember that Biden is an "well worn" 78 year old with a lot of health issues (he'll be 79 on November 20th). Never mind the rumors and allegations of dementia or other cognitive illnesses, Biden has suffered two brain aneurysms (one actually ruptured) and developed deep vein thrombosis along with pulmonary embolism.  Brain aneurysms can lead to strokes and be possibly fatal if left untreated. 

In watching Biden's speeches from the "get-go" of his presidential campaign, it appears obvious to just about everyone (even anti-Trumpsters) that something is wrong with Ole Joe. It appeared he was being coached and fed answers practically every step of the way in his speeches (especially during debates where wires from an ear piece could be seen under his jacket and Biden doesn't wear a hearing aid).

When Biden speaks without a teleprompter, his remarks are often muddled and occasionally incoherent, but then again, Obama's speeches weren't worth a damn without a teleprompter either.  It's been reported that he requires questions be submitted in advanced when being interviewed, and he's always got someone there off camera coaching him. Often he doesn't even take unscripted questions from reporters; he just makes his comments and walks off stage. Clearly there's something very wrong.

This leads to another observation. Without Ms. Tarkanian's tweet and picture I would have chalked this is up just another partisan low, albeit an especially cruel one. But there was a picture, which if real, just makes me feel sorry for Biden (the picture I saw looks like it was taken on a golf course and you can't see the man's face, which seems phony to me). It's also a sad commentary on society in just how fast everyone was to make fun of an obviously sick old man...President or not. Democrat or not.

It's obvious, or should be, to everyone that Joe Biden should never ever had been made president. Yes, he was qualified (more so than Obama or Trump). However, he also had a questionable past which included admissions of plagiarism, wanting to cut Social Security (which he called an "entitlement"), support for the Hyde Amendment (which prohibited using Medicaid dollars for abortions under any circumstances), support of NAFTA and claims of being a "fair trader" (anti-union), and so on.

Face it, if anybody, and I mean anybody but Trump was the Republican nominee, Joe Biden wouldn't be president right now, such was the visceral hatred for the man. Given the pandemic, the vaccination revolt and resulting labor shortage plus China's growing clout and aggressiveness, signs of inflation,rising prices, the Afghanistan debacle, and America's deep (and largely manufactured) divisions, Biden is the wrong man at the wrong time in American and world history.

Nevertheless, Trump was the GOP nominee just when America is more divided than at any time since just before the Civil War. China is on the move, as are many of the terrorist organizations who perceive a weak America. Several intelligent agencies now predict a major terrorist event in the U.S. within the next five to ten years. Biden also just recently made another gaff when he "apologized" to world leaders for the Trump Presidency and its policies.

Folks, in case you didn't know, there are several things the former and sitting presidents have informally agreed to do and not to do. One of those "rules" is to never openly criticized another president or their policies, but he did. In doing so, Biden in affect disavowed the Trump Presidency. If you want to bring the country together, that's not how you do it. All Biden succeeded in doing was throwing gasoline on a raging bonfire.

It's worth noting that there was no hue and cry from the Republican Establishment or the corporate controlled media since all sides see the Trump Presidency as nothing more than an aberration; a folly created by the unwashed and uncouth masses who didn't know any better than not to play the game---vote for a pre-vetted cardboard cutout on the Right, ignored the pre-vetted rich "socialist" insider on the Left, and finally allow Hillary her long overdue coronation (and stay tuned for one "Benghazi" of a presidency!). But that's not how it happened.

What happened was that the Establishment was challenged, albeit a bit haphazardly, by a non-politician. This was more than the usual campaign rhetoric and meaningless promises we've all come to expect. This was real. Despite every underhanded and dirty trick they could conjure, "The Donald" remained. But as the reelection loomed, Nancy Pelosi herself said that Trump "won't be allowed to be president again". Allowed? Isn't that our decision? As it turned out, apparently not.

Joe Biden was elected (or "selected" if you prefer) as a his reward for years of dedicated service to the party and the ruling Oligarchy. However, more and more it appears that he's little more than a placeholder. If you agree with that premise, you by default would agree that the American President has become hollow; a figurehead or puppet.

However, that doesn't mean the presidency itself has become equally hollow. It remains the "Imperial Presidency" except it's those behind the scenes, by whatever name you care to give it--- the "secret cabal", "deep state", the "shadow government", the "Corporate State", or simply the Oligarchy who remain firmly in charge of all the apparatuses of real power in and out of government. 

It's up to us regardless of party, race, gender, orientation, religion, or any other artificial divisions to restore the government of our Founders. But, rest assured, time is quickly running out and our enemies aren't waiting around to see what we decide. So, I ask you, what will you do? 

 

How China's Expanding Fishing Fleet Is Depleting the World's Oceans

China and Iran: Economic, Political, and Military Relations

Why 'Poopy Pants Biden' Memes Trended After POTUS Meeting with Pope Francis

A Closer Look At Joe Biden's Health

 

 

 

Does 'la Papa' really know best?

Pope Francis flew some 7000 miles to the United States to tell Americans to "welcome strangers in our midst", a reference to immigration---particularly illegal immigration--into this country. He then asked Americans to reject a "mindset of hostility". The Pontiff went on to say "...on this continent ... thousands of persons are led to travel north in search of a better life for themselves and for their loved ones, in search of greater opportunities," the Pope said. "Is this not what we want for our own children? We must not be taken aback by their numbers, but rather view them as persons, seeing their faces and listening to their stories, trying to respond as best we can to their situation. To respond in a way which is always humane, just and fraternal."

While I respect for Pope Francis for his openness and humility, which has been so often been lacking in past Popes and other religious leaders, I'm afraid he was barking up the wrong tree. America is literally a land of immigrants. Practically every population, language, and religion on the planet is represented by this country. America takes in more immigrants than any other nation and gives more in aid than any other nation. Although born in Argentina, Pope Francis seems woefully ignorant of our immigrant situation, not to mention Europe's. At present, the US has some 12 million illegal immigrants currently living in the states (some estimates push that number as high as 20 million) with thousands crossing the border daily.

America has been a highly welcoming country. 38.5 million foreign born immigrants have come to this country just since 2009. Roughly half are women. Two-thirds of those have become naturalized citizens. 46.9% are Latino or Hispanic, 23.9% are Asian, while 8.2% are black or African. The remaining 17.5 are either of another race (mainly white) or are of a mixed race. So the Pope is really off base telling America to "open its arms". What the aforementioned statistics should loudly say is that America is perhaps the most accepting nation in the world. Nevertheless, we are also a nation of laws. We have borders just as every other nation does, including Vatican City. All we ask is that if you want to come here, that you do it legally. Is that so difficult to understand? Yes, America does accept immigrants from other countries who are fleeing their homeland because of some natural or manmade crisis such as war, famine, genocide or some form of violent persecution---just under 75,000 came in 2009 alone. Most of these refugees came from Cuba, the Congo, Iran, Burundi, Vietnam, and Somalia. However, few of the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants now living in this country fit that criteria.

As for the Vatican City, a nation-state and seat of the Catholic Church, however, does not accept illegal immigrants or refugees. Those wishing to legally immigrant into Vatican City must first apply for special permission for residency. Most choose to settle outside the city walls (yes, I said "city walls". Vatican City is surrounded by a tall reinforced stone wall), in Rome. Although the official position of the Vatican has been that all immigrants has specific migratory rights (since humans are basically a nomadic species), the size and limited resources of Vatican City (approximately 108 square miles with roughly 10 people per square mile) make open acceptance impossible. So, if viewed more as a city-state than a nation-state, Vatican City would be comparable to many middle to small cities around the world. Yet, many of these cities have been forced into accepting immigrants and refugees. So, what's the difference?

I think the difference is multifold. First, many of the middle and small sized towns are not solely self-reliant. They get money and resources from the state and/or nation. Many are surrounded by farmland and ample useable water, plus they have an adequate infrastructure with the potential to expand. Ok, what about Vatican City? Though it's size is finite, it has more than ample financial resources thanks to its vast real estate holdings, national treasures (which are, frankly, simply priceless), and the outstanding revenue stream derived from the thousands of parishes throughout the world. If the Vatican was viewed as a corporation (which in many respects it is), it would be among the world's richest (the Vatican's bank, for instance, is estimated to have some 20 billion dollars in gold reserves on deposit just in the US alone. In addition, it receives some $850 million just from the 85 million Catholics living in North America---and there are some 2.1 billion Catholics in the world!). Another estimate claims that the Vatican's bank has some $8 billion in assets not including its various real estate holdings. Being located within Rome, there is adequate room to settle immigrants and refugees, with the permission of Rome's mayor and the Italian government, a good infrastructure as well as sufficient water and food.

So, my point here is that, as a head of state, Pope Francis could easily address the issue of immigration, either within Vatican City itself or some place within Italy or through its various global real estate holdings and, of course, where its political and religious influence allows. It would make far more sense for the Vatican to use its considerable wealth and power to promote resolutions that would allow refugees to remain or return to their home countries. As an aside, approximately 2/3 of Hispanics and Latinos are Catholic, so it obviously behooves the Pontiff to promote more immigration---legal and illegal--into the predominately Protestant United States. Just saying.

Finally, while the Pontiff, speaking at the United Nations, called on the US and other countries to be more "accepting" of immigrants, there was nothing in any of his speeches which called on immigrants to be more accepting of their chosen hosts. Nothing was mentioned about learning and using the host nation's primary language, of respecting or even adopting any of the host country's traditions and customs (not to mention other religions). Many seem to becoming only for what government handouts they get with no intent on integration. He made no appeal to the immigrants to leave behind old tribal, racial, religious or ethnic hatreds and start anew. There has already been several outbreaks of violence between various groups of immigrants in Europe. He said nothing about the newcomers cooperating with officials, avoiding violence or blending in with society. In fact, it seems that the Pope was pushing a one sided agenda; that the host nations must cower to the immigrants. That, in my opinion, was a critical mistake since while most of the nations have in fact been generous in their welcoming, it has been the immigrants who have proven to be disruptive, violent, and demanding that their host country forego their traditions---cultural and religious---in favor of theirs, and that my friends is wrong. It only sows the seeds for mistrust, prejudice, and violence. So, when handing out policy advice, how about a little less of "do as I say not as I do" ok?

Pope's immigration message draws praise, criticism from advocacy groups
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/09/24/pope-immigration-congress-speech-advocates-tussle/72699836/


Why Immigration is Different for Pope Francis
http://time.com/4046634/pope-francis-us-visit-immigration/


Frequently Requested Statistics on Immigrants and Immigration in the United States
http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/frequently-requested-statistics-immigrants-and-immigration-united-states-1


Pro-Immigration Pope Lives in Vatican City With The Strictest Immigration Policies in the World
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/09/pro-immigration-pope-lives-in-vatican-city-with-strictest-immigration-policies-in-the-world-video/


How rich is the Vatican?
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/how-rich-vatican-so-wealthy-it-can-stumble-across-millions-euros-just-tucked-away-1478219

Irish 'Ayes' are Smiling

Well, Pope Francis is in a dither. It seems that Ireland has just recently become the very first country to officially recognize gay marriage following a national referendum on May 23rd. Ireland has been staunch Catholic since the early 400's. Just 100 years ago, Ireland didn't permit divorces and still remains opposed to abortions. Nevertheless, it appears that pink is the new green on the Emerald Isle. To be honest, with all the commotion going on in the world, like wars, depleting food sources, energy shortages, troubles in the Middle East, terrorism, climate change, decreasing supplies of fresh water, an unsustainable population rate, jobs, pollution, America's loss of its democratic republic to a increasingly fascist oligarchy, a failing global economic system, I wouldn't think gay marriage in Ireland would even be on the radar for the Vatican.

So, how many people does this ruling affect? Well, apparently not that many. Approximately 4% of Ireland's population claim to be either gay or bisexual, though some surveys hint that the real number could be closer to 10% since many have refused to answer the question. What may have added to the Pope's ire is the report that church attendance dropped, not just in Ireland, but throughout all Europe and the Middle East (church attendance in Europe is down approximately 40% over recent years). Of course attendance in the Middle East could be partially attributed to the recent persecutions of Christians in general and the Eastern Orthodox and the Catholic Church in particular throughout not just the Middle East, but in Africa and parts of Asia or anywhere else where there is a rising tide of radical Islam. An estimated 24,000 Christians have been murdered so far by ISIS while another 700,000+ Christians are in flux as they try to avoid ISIS and other extremist Moslems; Moslems, by the way, who have declared Christianity to be "enemy #1" while dozens, if not more, churches are destroyed along with ancient historical sites. It seems that only the Catholics in Latin America has been immune from persecution...so far. On the "bright side", President Obama is poised to bring thousands of Moslems to the United States rather than these Christians who are under threat and facing a very real holocaust of their own.

Here in the States, gay marriage has been largely unpopular, especially in more conservative States, but there are signs that resistance against gay marriage is weakening. 37 States have legislation upholding gay marriage while 13 States have legislation prohibiting it. Ultimately, it will come down to the Supreme Court, which brings me to the heart of this article. The more conservative Christian churches and seminaries openly condemn gay marriage while the moderate and liberal religious groups have been mostly accepting if not at least more open minded. Among Millennials, who are replacing the Babyboomers as the largest voting bloc, gay, bisexual, or transgendered lives are a non-issue. That's something that the conservatives will have to get past if they are to remain a viable political power, at least on the national level. Otherwise, Millennials will leave the conservatives in the dust. In fact, Millennials are already forming their own socio-political identities which certainly leans Left and preferably non-partisan. Survey after survey show these Millennials to favor democratic-socialism while also reflecting a streak of libertarianism. In voting patterns so far, Millennials have tended to vote Democrat and Independent most often with Republicans coming in a distant third. It's not that they have any specific loyalty to the Democratic Party or Indies, it's just that they don't like the GOP's vision of America, which brings us back to the topic gay marriage. Unless the Republican Party (as well as other conservative parties and political groups) make a course change, they will---to quote Trotsky---wind up in the "dustbin of history". No one says they have to like it, but they do have to accept the reality of it. To borrow another quote, this time from the "Iron Chancellor", Otto von Bismarck, "politics is the art of the possible".

As for my personal opinion (and my apologies in advance if I step on any toes), I can't say that I have a problem with those who are gay, bisexual, or transgendered. I've always been heterosexual (so sue me). I've always thought that marriage was a relationship between a man and woman. It has been the backbone of civilization through the ages and it served a practical function. Civilizations such as the Assyrians, Babylonians, and Sumerians accepted a form of bisexual relationships, though the opposing sex arrangement was considered the most acceptable. This was also true of the Greeks who never sanctioned any sort of same gender marriage. In Roman, it was much the same, though not overt publically and was generally frowned upon.

When I ran for Metro Council in 2001, I was endorsed by the Fairness Campaign (the Fairness Campaign was a predominately LGBT organization which was promoting the Fairness Ordinance prohibiting anyone regardless of their sexual orientation--straight, gay, bisexual, or transgendered---from be discriminated against). I was one of the very few who answered the questionnaire and was willing to sit for an interview. I was quite truthful in both the questionnaire and interview. Briefly, I stated that I didn't believe in discrimination of any sort based on their sexual preferences or self-identity, race, religion, gender, or place of origin. As a result, I also received the endorsement of several other LGBT organizations such as The Letter. My opponent, however, was strictly against it though admitted in a interview that he hadn't read the proposed ordinance. Individuals were encouraged to call, email, and send threatening messages because of my acceptance of the endorsements. I recall trying to educate them, but it was mostly hopeless. Nevertheless, the ordinance passed by a substantial margin.

When I ran for the State Legislature in 2004, I received a similar questionnaire from most of the same groups. I again answered their questions exactly the same way, though some withheld their endorsement this time because of their personal hang-ups with the political party and not me. There were a few in the party leadership who disapproved but that was their problem not mine. Besides, I've always been secure enough with my own masculinity not to feel threatened. All the same, I was supported by the nation's top conservative gay, bisexual and transgendered political organization. As I explained at the time, I am strictly heterosexual and I believe marriage as such should be a union between one man and one woman. Nevertheless, I would not support any legislation which promoted discrimination in any form. To be clear (and here is my obligatory disclaimer statement), I've had numerous gay, bisexual, and lesbian friends; still do. I lived in San Francisco during the 1970's, at a time when individuals were just coming "out of the closet". I even stood on the sidewalk to watch the second "Gay Pride" parade (actually I happened to be at a Kosher deli eating a sandwich and walked out to see what the hubbub was all about, but that muddles the point). I even knew Harvey Milk, a member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors who was assassinated along with Mayor Moscone in 1978. Milk was the first openly gay politician ever to be elected in California. While in the service, I discretely "protected" a couple of Navy corpsmen who were in a same-sex relationship. Had it come out that I knew and didn't report it, I would have been in some pretty serious trouble too. Still, had they been found out, they would have literally been booted out with a General Discharge within 24 hours. These individuals were good corpsmen with exemplary military records and I wasn't going to let that happen. I've also worked with numerous individuals who weren't straight over the years. As with every group, there are always some who are nice and some who are jerks. I have no issues with that since I treat people the way I way I want to be treated. I also treat them as they treat me. As an aside, should I should ever run for office again, I hope I can count on their support
.

While I don't personally agree with non-straight relationships, I still must acknowledge that none of these relationships are, frankly, any of my business. I have enough problems living my life without managing someone else's. Each us exist in this time and space for a some reason which may or may not be entirely clear to us. We can say it's all a part of "God's plan" or part of some deity's grand design. We can attribute it to some random fluke in the universe, or simply claim that our existence is nothing more than a meaningless flip of the comic coin. Nevertheless, we are here for now. In our fleeting moment of existance, we are free to choose what sort of life we want to live within certain defined parameters set by society. Thus, we are free to choose to be with those who bring us happiness and fill whatever personal void we each have to the degree we allow. Accordingly, what innate right do we have to decide for someone else who can be a friend or lover. We can't decide what level of emotional or ever personal comfort and security someone brings to someone else. We can only make that decision for ourselves.

Historically, both governments and religious institutions (which for most of history, has been one and the same) have sought ways to control the population through its rules and dogma. Slowly, society has rolled much of that back, giving the individual power over themselves while both government and religious institutions continue to seek ways to reassert their authority. In this, Ireland's voter have acted in unison to reclaim personal responsibility over their lives much to the consternation of the Vatican and no doubt to conservatives in general. At what point should the government continue to exert its control over the lives of two adult individuals who freely choose to make a purely personal decision regarding their relationship? Do we really need the government's "permission" in the form of State sanctioned license? If we choose to seek to invoke the blessing of God or some other divinity, shouldn't that decision be between the two individuals and that religious institution? If a Church disapproves, fine. There may be others which will approve. Ultimately, churches and their like will grow or decline based on their ability to meet the needs of the community the same way businesses would prosper or close based on allowing or forbidding smoking (employees are, of course, free to work there or not, depending on their acceptance of the risk just as customers are free to eat there or somewhere else. The business which best meets the needs of the local market will succeed while the others either adapt or close). This really comes down to personal choice. Meanwhile, as far the State is concern, the religious institutions can still record and report the marriages for the government's tax records. As for the Irish, congratulations on having the moral certainty to made a bold statement to the world. Now, how about a pint?



How Many People in Ireland are Gay?
http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/how-many-people-in-ireland-are-gay-1.2155679


37 States with Legal Gay Marriage and 13 States with Same Sex Marriage Bans.
http://gaymarriage.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004857


The New Exodus: Christians flee ISIS in the Middle East
http://www.newsweek.com/2015/04/03/new-exodus-christians-flee-isis-middle-east-316785.html


Vatican: Irish gay marriage vote a 'defeat for humanity'
http://www.aol.com/article/2015/05/27/vatican-irish-gay-marriage-vote-a-defeat-for-humanity/21187566/?icid=maing-grid7%7Chtmlws-main-bb%7Cdl2%7Csec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D-853854980