Has Marriage Derangement Syndrome Genetically Altered Gays and Lesbians to the Point Where All They Can Do is Lie and Deceive?

If the actions of gays and lesbians surrounding screwing trans people out of their civil rights and then re-writing/ignoring the history of their role in creating third-class status for trans people were the only criterion for making such a determination, sadly then, the answer would be in the affirmative – and irrebuttable.

Take, for instance, gay marriage.

I could just leave it there and it would still be virtually irrebuttable.

But, even though Marriage Derangement Syndrome is at the heart of it, lets go further – and lets look at this thread at Free State Just Us’s, er…, ‘Equality’ Maryland’s Facebook page, a thread pimping the sockpuppet’s ludicrous attempt to appear to give a shit about trans people (which was nothing more than a posting of Sandy Rawls’ statement about discrimination she’s faced – the vast majority of which would still be legal under the law that Free State Just Us is presenting itself as trying to pass this year):

First, two comments addressing at least one comment that has apparently gone away (and, remember, the sockpuppet apparently prowls on Free State Just Us’s FB pages):

Equality Maryland ‎@ Jayne: We link to the bill on our website and through the blog post.  (Friday at 8:39am)

Equality Maryland @Jayne – unfortunately, the same folks who opposed HB 474 will come out to try to stop this bill. They do not want to see any gains by the transgender community. So while we are genuinely committed to winning this bill AND to going back every year to continue to make gains, they will continue to oppose any and all efforts to provide support or protections. (Saturday@ 3:48 pm) 

“They do not want to see any gains by the transgender community.”

Funny, that’s precisely what could have been said of ‘Equality’ Maryland a decade ago when it was doing business as Free State Just Us.

Bianca Lynne appears to follow those two comments (again, I say ‘appear’ given that I have no confidence that there hasn’t been scrubbing) with this (timstamped Yesterday at 2:27 am):

Let’s see a decade after your earlier incarnation lied to pass a gay-only job and public accommodations law passed – trans people can still be refused housing and jobs as well as access to shelters, restaurants, movie theaters, etc.

A decade after your earlier incarnation lied t[o] pass a gay-only set of laws you support a bill that strips existing access to the above from trans people who already have those protections. This happens at the same time as you push for gay marriage. With a promise that you will continue to work on trans issues – given your record of a decade of having glb-only legislation, I think it is reasonable to wonder how long it will take after gays get to file joint state tax returns.

I’m curious what concessions you placed in the gay marriage bill? Can florists or event halls deny their services? Do gays get most of the rights and responsibilities of marriage afforded in the state , but can’t access others? Or were all the concessions made in the GENDA?

A few hours later, someone with the ability to post under the ‘Equality Maryland’ monicker, responded with this:

Former Governor Parris Glendening who signed the bill adding “sexual orientation” to the statewide laws publicly stated at a 2009 EQMD event that leaving out gender identity was a mistake. We have been working for years to make this change…. We have committed time, money and effort. We are finally making strides and are dedicated to doing the hard work of passing protections for jobs and housing, as well as to the long-term work of advancing important needs like public accommodations, cultural competency in health care, access to mental health services & substance abuse treatment programs, and other critical issues.

So, lets examine this.

  1. They leave the uninformed reader with the impression that Free State Just Us has been working for the entirety of Maryland’s gay-only decade to remove the stain left by that 2001 political hate crime
  2. They “dedicated to doing the hard work…” which sounds a lot like HRC’s moving-goalpost definition of “educating.”
  3. They’re throwing a former Maryland governor under the bus; yes, apparetnly he did say what they claim he said – but do you notice who/what receives no culpability call-out?

Bianca Lynne did:

What about the folks who led EQMD a decade ago? What are they saying? What about the people who told the lies that got it passed in the first place? What are they doing to help trans people (Working for NCLR doesn’t count since it refuses to hire trans women).

Take responsibility for your group’s part in making things like access to health care, are public accommodations “hard work”. You make it sound trans people should be grateful you are doing anything at all for us. Your old EDs made it so that trans women can get evicted from shelters, and your current group isn’t helping that … all so it’s more likely for gays to have a wedding.See More

Where are the people who rammed through the gay-only law a decade ago utilizing a lubricant amalgam of bullying, lies and deceit?

Talk amongst yah-selves with that as the topic.  In the meantime, here are screensnaps of that entire FB thread, as it appeared at approximately 11:00 am on Monday, Feb. 14:

Now, think about what the sockpuppet-authored(and, as I’ve noted, sockpuppet-scrubbed) PHB thread is an ad for:

Equality Maryland’s annual Lobby Day is happening on Monday, February 14th at 5pm in Annapolis.  Show your little love bug how much you care by bringing hir, her or him by the state house for a spot of lobbying for the gender identity anti-discrimination and marriage equality bills.  You can find more details and sign up here.

It touts Free State Just Us’s lobby day – which is today.

Now isn’t that special.  

In the spirit of Valentine’s day and love and yadda, yadda, yadda, I’m going to do something nice. I’m going to use my vast wealth of photoshop experience to make a ogo that they can use – a logo that will actually better represent their efforts and desires to Maryland legislators.

Now THAT would be truth in advertising.

But lets go back to the sockpuppet – before what I had to take time out from my schedule this morning to say to her gets scrubbed off of that pathetic thread.

In response to someone preaching the intrmental progress pap – claiming that there is no civil right bill that was not a half-measure, I noted:

The gay-only rights bill that Free State Just Us (now d/b/a ‘Equality’ Maryland) was not ‘half’ of what maryland gays were then wanting

It was 100% of what they then wanted.It was 0% of what trans people needed.

That is the quantification of the lie of gay-primacy ‘incremental progress.’  Its not ‘incremental’ for anyone.  Gays get everything they want, when they want it; trans people get nothing – except third-class status.

Then up popped the sockpuppet:

If trans people never get anything, how do you explain the fact that anti-discrimination laws for trans people exist in 12 states plus DC?  It is true that such laws cover sexual orientation in 18 states and that 6 state difference is wrong and unfair, but it is patently incorrect to state that “Gays get everything they want, when they want it; trans people get nothing – except third-class status.”If “Gays get everything they want, when they want it; trans people get nothing – except third-class status” then why can’t we LGBs marry in most states?  It is possible for trans people to marry in states where LGBs can’t.  The exception is if both trans people have ID of the same sex and live in states prohibiting same-sex marriage, but even under those conditions I know of people who live as their true gender but “ID” as the gender opposite their partner and so could get married.  It doesn’t always work and it certainly isn’t an ideal system when you have to jigger it that way, but such couples DO sometimes have options that LGB couples don’t.  And I say good for them if they can make an unfair system work for them!  

People should absolutely speak out when unfair horse trading is happening or when inadequate bills are filed.  But then the work of righting the wrongs must begin.  Making hyperbolic claims doesn’t move the ball forward.  Well, I take that back – hyperbolic community-splitting claims do move the ball forward for the anti-LGBT opposition.

DADT Discharges May End, But Discrimination Might Not, by Kerry Eleveld

Puting aside the fact that the DADT thing that she pimps in her sig is yet another example of trans needs being steamrolled in favor of gay wants (hint: the ‘discrimination’ that ‘might not’ end?  Even that’s not a reference to anti-trans discrimination), do notice that Non-Lawyer Non-Lurleen doesn’t really address what I was referring to, spewing instead a bunch of crap that, to the untrained eye, appears touchy-feely and kum-bah-yah-ish but, in all likelihood, probably was boilerplate party-line InsidersOUT propaganda.

My response?

Well, even though its likely to get scrubbed from its location at PHB, you’ll always be able to find it here:

obfuscation station

it is patently incorrect to state that “Gays get everything they want, when they want it; trans people get nothing – except third-class status.”

How many of those trans-inclusive states saw gay-only rights laws followed by the gays who crammed those gay-only laws through the legislature actually going back and adding T?  Now compare that number to the number of states that passed legitimate laws in the first instance – and compare it to the number where the gays who crammed those gay-only laws through the legislature moved on to the ‘want’ of gay marriage and have never given a second thought about what trans people NEED to survive.

I was referring to the LIE of intra-jurisdictional ‘incremental progress’ – and, specifically, of how that LIE has played out in Maryland.

Did the gay-only rights bill that passed in Maryland in 2001 initially also contain gay marriage which was jettisoned, making the bill ‘incremental’ for gays? No.  The gay-only rights bill was exactly what Cathy Brennan, Shannon Avery, Liz Seaton and the rest of the Maryland gay-primacy apartheid crowd wanted.  By the use of lies and deceit (telling legislators and the public that trans people were already protected under Maryland law, something they knew damn good and well was a lie), they got 100% of what they set out for and the left trans people 100% actually unprotected.

People should absolutely speak out when unfair horse trading is happening or when inadequate bills are filed.  But then the work of righting the wrongs must begin.

You can’t right wrongs until those who committed the wrongs are hauled into the dock and made to answer for their crimes.

Where are the people who lied and deceived to ramrod the gay-only bill through Maryland in 2001?  Where are all of the Maryland state law trans-based sex discrimination claims that they asserted as justification for giving themselves the explicitness of statutory protections?

I have my suspicions.  I presume they’re out planning for their Mryland weddings – and not giving a damn about Maryland trans law.

If “Gays get everything they want, when they want it; trans people get nothing – except third-class status” then why can’t we LGBs marry in most states?  It is possible for trans people to marry in states where LGBs can’t.

Funny how gays only rasie this as a substantive pro-trans legal nugget to justify gay-primacy aparthied on other fronts. When we bring it up to justify why trans law isn’t as alien and scary and new as gay transphobes such as St. Barney, Jonathan Capehart and John Aravosis say it is when they want to keep us out of ‘their’ gay-only ENDA, we’re told that we’re delusional and live in Oz.

They’re not going to be allowed to have it both ways – and neither are you, particularly when you try to steamroll over my comments with a response that has virtually nothing to do with the specific matter that I was addressing.


The worst that my sig will do is annoy people who don’t like cats…

or Kats.

17 Responses to Has Marriage Derangement Syndrome Genetically Altered Gays and Lesbians to the Point Where All They Can Do is Lie and Deceive?

  1. Kathleen says:

    Hey – you’ll take what we decide – and you’ll like it.

    God – she’s a complete dick.

  2. laughriotgirl says:

    Thanks for highlighting my posts there (Bianca Lynne)

  3. laughriotgirl says:

    Yes, NCLR – like the Concerned Women for America – seems to have a large portion of men on their payroll.

  4. genderqueer riff raff says:

    I just want to thank everybody with the intestinal fortitude for this conflict , its our lives you re saving by following this so carefully. Shame on EQmaryland and the crap they are pulling. Better to have no bill than HR 235 i called them and told them so – shame on them for the bull crap they continue to peddle and Lurleen is really an inveterate con with no understanding AT ALL of how things work in reality for trans people. Just wait until butch dykes and effeminate men start getting kicked out of bathrooms restaurants and stores. They may not have this happening in Maryland but it happens in my state where WE have an inclusive ENDA – i am wondering what planet these Equality people are living on , what kind of bubble their world consists of ? IF Gender Identity and expression is not included with the specifier of Public accommodations the legislation is worthless. Incrementalism NEVER has works. Nobody comes back for anybody, its all of us or its non of us.

    The only way it ever could possibly work is if Gender Identity and expression and sexual orientation were grafted onto to the Civil Rights Act of 64. *Similar to what the Canadians just passed.

  5. Kathleen says:

    Cathy Brennan: Why did Equality Maryland fail to endorse Hector Torres, a strong supporter of marriage equality? Because of the trans bill? Have you asked Hector Torres where he stands on that bill?
    September 3, 2010 at 10:12am


    O’Malley – once again – is confused as to what “equality” means. “Equality” does not mean some separate and maybe kind of not as equal system (Mr. Governor, you may recall a case called Plessy v. Ferguson being overturned by a little case called Brown v. Board of Education when you were in law school…). Equal means equal. You are either for gay marriage and equality, or you are in favor of discrimination – you can take your civil union and stick it with the Plessy decision. You cannot have it both ways. Own your view, Mr. Governor, and live with the consequences, but enough of the smarmy double-talk – we are not all dumb enough to believe you.

    Oh, and gay shillers for O’Malley – bite me, I don’t respect what you have to say.

    Posted by: Cathy Brennan | September 17, 2010 4:02 PM



    I guess that separate and lesser equality thing is just fine – so long as it only applies to trans people.

    • Katrina Rose says:

      I wonder if Cathy Brennan’s employer knows what sort of unethical – dare I say, flat out dishonest – legal theory that she pushed on an ill-informed public (not to mention the legislatutre) to get the gay-only rights law passed in 2001?

      I also wonder if the law firm that she works for has ever employed – or even interviewed – a person who was left unprotected by the Cathy Brennan-approved Maryland gay-only rights law of 2001?

      • Kathleen says:

        I don’t know about that – but – she seems to think that after consigning trans people to another decade of disfranchisement for her personal benefit – she seems to think her getting a divorce takes precedence over someone feeding themselves or being allowed into a homeless shelter during weather like we’ve had this year.

        I hope her ex gets the house & she gets totally soaked for alimony.


        text size: A | A | A Courts Struggle With Same-Sex Divorceposted 03/15/10 6:02 pm   producer: Markham Evans
        search tags:   gay marriage   •   gay divorce   •   same sex divorce
        Please Upgrade To Flash!

        Stay on top of breaking news!
        Sign up for ABC 7 News e-mail alerts.
        Your Email:  

        Md. Senate to Weigh Blocking Gay Marriage Opinion
        Same-sex Couples Marry Under New D.C. Law
        D.C.-area Wedding Industry to Profit From Same-sex Marriages
        150 Same-sex Couples Apply for D.C. Marriage Licenses
        WASHINGTON – Now that same-sex couples can legally marry in the District, a new issue is popping up: gay divorce.
        While some couples say “I do,” others are bidding each other “adieu” — and courts and laws are struggling to keep up.

        Cathy Brennan says she “hopefully” wants to “get a divorce.”

        Brennan and her soon-to-be-ex wife tied the knot in Vermont several years ago. They now live in Maryland. When their relationship soured, they could not divorce because their home state did not recognize same sex marriage.

        ABC 7 Talkback:
        Click Here to Comment on this Story

        “Courts have been reluctant to grant divorces because they didn’t know what to do with a gay marriage,” Brennan said.

        The legalization of same-sex marriage in D.C., and the Maryland attorney general’s decision to recognize in Maryland gay marriages performed elsewhere gives wed gay couples a legal way out.

        “Many couples simply can not get out of their relationship,” said Amy Strent, a divorce attorney. “There is no one to say what is fair and unfair there is no one to

      • Katrina Rose says:

        “Courts have been reluctant to grant divorces because they didn’t know what to do with a gay marriage,” Brennan said.

        I wonder how eager courts in Maryland have been over the last ten years to find that Connecticut state decisions on Connecticut sex discrimination law are binding – or even have the slightest bit of relevance – in Maryland.

        I wonder if all of the people who have decided to march in lockstep adherence to what Free State Just Us has in mind for 2011 are aware that ten years ago Cathy Brennan (1) declared that if a person or organization that “opposes the Antidiscrimination Act, it has taken an anti-gay position” even if that position was based on that bill’s shortcomings, yet (2) somehow took issue with the converse position which held that opposing trans-inclusion was anti-trans.

        One wonders how many of those who are, at this very moment, drinking the vintage 2011 Free State Just Us kool-aid are aware that people like Brennan declared a decade ago – whilst demanding oaths of fealty to the gay-only bill – that:

        one cannot argue with a person or group of people who insist on believing one thing about this legislation that is not in fact true (i.e. that this bill won’t help certain folks – and that Price Waterhouse and its progeny, as well as the state law prohibiting gender discrimination, are not helpful to folks).

        and yet have apparently never come forward with even the slightest bit of evidence to show that her theory bore fruit – or even germinated.

        In response to someone who had the temerity to accurately assert that “it is disingenuous to claim that TG protections already exist,” Brennan said:

        What we have said, repeatedly, is that we should litigate cases under sex/gender discrimination to see if we can do it. We think we can. We need folks to step up to do that.

        That is what Price Waterhouse is about – sex stereotyping. There have been successful cases using this theory.

        But, of course, none to that point had been under Maryland state law – which, of course, was what was under consideration at the Maryland Legislature that year (and this.)

        On March 17, 2001, Brennan pimped the In re John/Jane Doe declaratory ruling
        of November 9, 2000….

        a ruling from the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights

        On March 19, 2001, in response to being told that that, and other decisions she had pointed to “[we]re limited to Massachusetts and Connecticut,” she responded:

        That is true. However, lawyers use cases from other jurisdictions when there is no controlling precedent in the state

        which begs the question of why Maryland gays and lesbians such as herself weren’t content on using cases like Oncale v. Sundonwer and, while we’re at it, Price Waterhouse, to try and weave some sort of rudimentary gay-ish protections that, of course, would not result in any overt postings in employment offices saying that sexual orientation was a protected classification.

        Upon having, yet again, a reality pointed out to get, namely: “Those states have their own sex discrimination statutes. Depending on how a state’s statute is written, gender may or may not fall under
        it,” Brennan responded:

        This is not entirely accurate. Title VII which says sex covers sex stereotyping, which is what discrimination against transgendered folks is. Sex and gender are used interchangebaly in most statutes and include sex sterotyping. The distinctions some folks make (gender identity, expression) are sociological, not legal.

        I wonder if she have given that as firm legal advice for a paying client to rely on?

        The distinctions some folks make


        Some folks like judges.

        Which makes me wonder how much her malpractice insurance would have gone up shortly thereafter?

        When confronted with: “A good legal defense is just that. It is not explicit legal protection. While we should be encouraged by the New England news and consider using those approaches, it is no substitute for crafting laws that protect us all. Cases proceed one by one under each circumstance, and even the federal verdict only guarentees the right for students to expres themselves, not to deny a transexual employment. Only the Connecticut case talked about employment, and there it would be VERY diffiuclt to mount a case regarding hiring practices vs. firing practices,” Brennan again couldn’t be bothered with the reality of the legal regime that would be created by the law that she and the others in Maryland’s gay and lesbian elite wanted:

        Litigation is often stronger than statutory protections

        Again, when confronted with “If MD’s law is sex based and not gender based, then we probably have no protections under current law,” a reality actually borne out by other state law decisions, Brennan again went for the crackpipe and demanded that the sober people defer to her delusions:

        This is an inaccurate reading of what sex has been interpreted to mean by many courts. Again, you are confusing sociological terms with legal ones.

        I refer thee to:

        Maffei v. Kolaeton Indus., Inc., 626 N.Y.S. 2d 391 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1995) (holding that city ordinance prohibiting “gender” discrimination protects transsexuals)

        If you follow the link, you’ll find a list of cases – many of which are state law, yet none of which are from Maryland!

        As for the Maffei opinion? It involved a transsexual – and the judge wrote:

        The crucial issue presented herein is whether harassment against a transsexual is included within the purview of the aforequoted statutes. In setting forth his position, plaintiff does not argue that the Federal law is applicable, but rather appears to principally rely upon the provision of the City law prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation.

        I find that this City provision, however, does not aid plaintiff. Subdivision (20) of section 8-102 of the Administrative Code defines “sexual orientation” to mean “heterosexuality, homosexuality or bisexuality”. The term is thus dealing with sexual preferences and practices, i.e., the sex of a person’s sexual partner, with heterosexuals being persons sexually attracted to members of the opposite sex, homosexuals being those attracted to members of the same sex, and bisexuals attracted to both sexes. There is no claim that the harassment alleged herein is the result of any sexual preferences expressed by plaintiff.

        So much for the theory that a gay-only law does squat for trans folks, eh? Yet, the trans man prevailed.


        In examining the City statute, it is noted that as originally enacted by Local Laws, 1965, No. 97 of the City of New York it referred to discrimination based on “sex”. However, subsequently the term “gender” was substituted for the word “sex”. While the reason for this change is not apparent, one court ( Dobre v National R. R. Passenger Corp., supra), which determined that transsexuals are not covered by the word “sex” in title VII, observed that the result would be different if instead the term “gender” had been used, stating: “The term ‘sex’ in Title VII refers to an individual’s distinguishing biological or anatomical characteristics, whereas the term ‘gender’ refers to an individual’s sexual identity. Holloway, 566 F.2d at 662-63.” (850 F Supp, at 286, supra.)

        Maryland anti-discrimination law?

        § 20-602. State policy

        It is the policy of the State, in the exercise of its police power for the protection of the public safety, public health, and general welfare, for the maintenance of business and good government, and for the promotion of the State’s trade, commerce, and manufacturers:

        (1) to assure all persons equal opportunity in receiving employment and in all labor management-union relations, regardless of race, color, religion, ancestry or national origin, sex, age, marital status, sexual orientation, or disability unrelated in nature and extent so as to reasonably preclude the performance of the employment; and

        (2) to that end, to prohibit discrimination in employment by any person.

        At any point after 2001 did Cathy Brennan or Shannon Avery or Liz Seaton or Free State Just Us or GLCCB or any gay or lesbian person in Maryland currently making marriage wants a higher priority than trans employment needs make any effort to get the Maryland Legislature to effectuate that sort of change to Maryland statutory law?

        Again I ask: Does Cathy Brennan’s employer – and that employer’s clients – know about the blatantly disingenuous, dishonest and deceiftul – and, if none of those, then incompetent – garbage that she was shovelling around back in 2001?

  6. Kathleen says:

    This woman should recuse herself from any case involving trans issues, defendants or plaintiffs.

    It would be useful to look at how trans people – trans women in particular – were treated in MD prisons during her time as policy czar. Also – what policies applied, any changes & how the admin responded to complaints & suits over care while incarcerated. Including access to trans related medical care & conditions of protective custody.



    SHANNON E. AVERY, Associate Judge, District Court of Maryland, District 1, Baltimore City, since August 16, 2010.
    Assistant Public Defender, Appellate Division, Office of Public Defender, 1993-99 (law clerk, 1992-93). Member, Complaint Evaluation Board, Baltimore City, 1996-98. Chair, Community Relations Commission, Baltimore City, 1996-2007. Mayor’s Transition Team, Baltimore City,1999-2000 (public safety committee). Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Appeals Division, Office of Attorney General, 1999-2007. Member, Special Commission to Study Sexual-Orientation Discrimination in Maryland, 2000-01; Steering Committee, Governor-elect’s Transition Team, 2006-07. Executive Director, Office of Planning, Policy, Regulations, and Statistics, Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services, 2007-10. Member, Criminal Justice Information Advisory Board, 2009-. Born in Baltimore, Maryland, July 21, 1966. Towson University, B.S. (english & political science), cum laude, 1989; University of Baltimore School of Law, J.D., 1992. Admitted to Maryland Bar, 1992; U.S. Supreme Court, 2003. Law clerk to Mark E. Herman, Esq., 1990-91. Victim advocate, House of Ruth Legal Clinic, 1991-93. Member, Maryland State Bar Association; Maryland Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LBGT) Bar Association, 1994-. Co-Chair, Baltimore Justice Campaign, 1992-94. Board of Directors, Equality Maryland, 1999-2000; Gay and Lesbian Community Center of Baltimore, 2000-02. Adjunct Professor, University of Baltimore School of Law, 2006-. Outstanding Service Award, Baltimore City Community Relations Commission, 2005. Mark F. Scurti Award for Community Service, Outlaw (LBTG student association, University of Baltimore School of Law), 2009.


  7. Tom Lang says:

    All, I am so glad you are reporting on this and keeping a logue for history’s sake. Years from now people will see how TG/TS people were silenced or how GLs tried to silence you
    My suggestion here is this. I understand why you just refer to her as “the sockpuppet” but I think these posts, these exposes need to follow dear Lurleen around for the rest of her life. My suggestion is to speak her name. “Laurel Ramseyer” “Laurel from BlueMassGroup–who by the way was collecting money in MA for Washingtons Ref 71 effort I just discovered” “Lurleen” and “Lurleen Blogovitch”. If you do a search on Laurel, besides sockpuppetry and being ERWs Communications Director, she hasn’t done much else in life but bug studies. Time to put the microscope on her. Permanently.

  8. […] (as text, in case the images don’t show up well) to these that she posted as a comment elsewhere: Cathy Brennan: Why did Equality Maryland fail to endorse Hector Torres, a strong supporter of […]

  9. […] (as text, in case the images don’t show up well) to these that she posted as a comment elsewhere: Cathy Brennan: Why did Equality Maryland fail to endorse Hector Torres, a strong supporter of […]

  10. […] Has Marriage Derangement Syndrome Genetically Altered Gays and Lesbians to the Point Where All They … […]

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: