Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Divided over gay marriage
LA Times ^ | March 12, 04 | Roy Rivenburg

Posted on 03/13/2004 7:08:21 PM PST by churchillbuff

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100 last
To: *Homosexual Agenda; EdReform; scripter; GrandMoM; backhoe; Yehuda; Clint N. Suhks; saradippity; ...
Homosexual Agenda Ping - More droplets from the Tsunami of Sewage(tm).

Finally - honesty!

Goes along with what these spokespersons for the "gay" agenda have to say about same sex marriage:

An excerpt from: In Their Own Words: The Homosexual Agenda:
"Homosexual activist Michelangelo Signorile, who writes periodically for The New York Times, summarizes the agenda in OUT magazine: (Dec/Jan 1994):


"A middle ground might be to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society's moral codes, but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution... The most subversive action lesbian and gay men can undertake --and one that would perhaps benefit all of society--is to transform the notion of family entirely."

"Its the final tool with which to dismantle all sodomy statues, get education about homosexuality and AIDS into the public schools and in short to usher in a sea change in how society views and treats us."


Chris Crain, the editor of the Washington Blade has stated that all homosexual activists should fight for the legalization of same-sex marriage as a way of gaining passage of federal anti-discrimination laws that will provide homosexuals with federal protection for their chosen lifestyle.
Crain writes: "...any leader of any gay rights organization who is not prepared to throw the bulk of their efforts right now into the fight for marriage is squandering resources and doesn't deserve the position." (Washington Blade, August, 2003).

Andrew Sullivan, a homosexual activist writing in his book, Virtually Normal, says that once same-sex marriage is legalized, heterosexuals will have to develop a greater "understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman." He notes: "The truth is, homosexuals are not entirely normal; and to flatten their varied and complicated lives into a single, moralistic model is to miss what is essential and exhilarating about their otherness." (Sullivan, Virtually Normal, pp. 202-203)

Paula Ettelbrick, a law professor and homosexual activist has said: "Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so. . Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family; and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society. . We must keep our eyes on the goals of providing true alternatives to marriage and of radically reordering society's view of reality." (partially quoted in "Beyond Gay Marriage," Stanley Kurtz, The Weekly Standard, August 4, 2003)

Evan Wolfson has stated: "Isn't having the law pretend that there is only one family model that works (let alone exists) a lie? . marriage is not just about procreation-indeed is not necessarily about procreation at all. "(quoted in "What Marriage Is For," by Maggie Gallagher, The Weekly Standard, August 11, 2003)

Mitchel Raphael, editor of the Canadian homosexual magazine Fab, says: "Ambiguity is a good word for the feeling among gays about marriage. I'd be for marriage if I thought gay people would challenge and change the institution and not buy into the traditional meaning of 'till death do us part' and monogamy forever. We should be Oscar Wildes and not like everyone else watching the play." (quoted in "Now Free To Marry, Canada's Gays Say, 'Do I?'" by Clifford Krauss, The New York Times, August 31, 2003)

NOTE THIS ONE IN PARTICULAR:

1972 Gay Rights Platform Demands: "Repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit." [Another in the list of demands was the elimination of all age-of-consent laws.]

51 posted on 03/13/2004 10:37:24 PM PST by little jeremiah (...men of intemperate minds can not be free. Their passions forge their fetters.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff
Woe to them that call good evil, and evil good.
We are sinking deeper and deeper into the mire in this country.
I just returned from a business trip to San Francisco, the site of all of the gay marriage flap recently. The media up there are going almost 24/7 on this. Foxnews was staying in the hotel we were at. It is a media frenzy up there, all negative against the Supreme court for stopping the so called weddings. I feel as though I need to spend days in the shower after being in the middle of this.
52 posted on 03/13/2004 10:48:41 PM PST by ladyinred (democrats have blood on their hands!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: momfirst
Muslim terrorist do not need to attack here again American society is destroying itself.
53 posted on 03/14/2004 1:35:23 AM PST by oceanperch (`It's A Boy Address:http://community-2.webtv.net/YaquinaBay/LangleyPortar)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Chandler
LOL Mine would shoot me if they had to live under the same roof.
54 posted on 03/14/2004 1:37:17 AM PST by oceanperch (`It's A Boy Address:http://community-2.webtv.net/YaquinaBay/LangleyPortar)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff
The end is near.
55 posted on 03/14/2004 2:24:15 AM PST by expatguy (Subliminal Advertising Executive)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff
They are trying to legalize sex with children.
56 posted on 03/14/2004 5:25:36 AM PST by tkathy (Our economy, our investments, and our jobs DEPEND on powerful national security.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff
God save us from this horror.

If this great evil actually comes to pass, the final death of the United States of America will not be far behind, and a great split of the regions will occur soon thereafter. Sections of the nation that reject this will possibly remain free, but those that accept it will decay rapidly until they are invaded and taken over by outside forces.

Historically speaking, God has never allowed great empires that have become evil to remain standing. If drastic change does not come soon the same will happen here.

57 posted on 03/14/2004 5:50:56 AM PST by MarcoPolo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
BTTT
58 posted on 03/14/2004 6:06:06 AM PST by GrandMoM (how could I not have hope in JESUS....MY WOUNDS WERE HEALED BY HIS WOUNDS-Mel Gibson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff
The other goal is to "push the parameters of sex, sexuality and family, and in the process transform the very fabric of society."

Yup, playing with fire. Make no doubt, the goal is to transform the very fabric of society. It's good to have that goal out in the open, perhaps it will encourage those who want to preserve the fabric of society.

59 posted on 03/14/2004 6:09:23 AM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff
Is there a picture of the decadent?
60 posted on 03/14/2004 6:12:00 AM PST by AEMILIUS PAULUS (Further, the statement assumed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: AEMILIUS PAULUS
Some of us don't want to see any pictures! Reading the words and understanding the mind of fiends is bad enough.
61 posted on 03/14/2004 7:29:09 AM PST by little jeremiah (...men of intemperate minds can not be free. Their passions forge their fetters.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

62 posted on 03/14/2004 7:32:31 AM PST by johniegrad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
You Said: "...and understanding the mind of fiends is bad enough."

Response: You assume they have a mind!

Comment: If pictures of the decadents are shown each time one of them vomits their drivel an interesting pattern begins to become apparent.

63 posted on 03/14/2004 7:37:43 AM PST by AEMILIUS PAULUS (Further, the statement assumed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: supercat
re: To be sure, women are well within their rights to insist that they be their husband's sole love interest, and I suspect the vast majority of women would so insist.)))

They can insist all they like, but it'll be up to hubby who he marries. Then her household assets have simply been divided and lessened, and her children's family status threatened. In the post-marriage world, if everything is marriage, nothing is marriage.

I know of a very affluent liberal couple--she's High Maintenance to da max. They are most vociferously in favor of same-sex marriage. I think I'll point out that shortly nothing will stop her from being only one of SEVERAL trophy wives...not only will she have to share hubby (no great sacrifice), but hubby's checkbook. Heh.

Ah, feminism.

64 posted on 03/14/2004 7:46:20 AM PST by Mamzelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff
Well, it was the obvious next step, wasn't it? And unavoidable by their arguments to legalize homosexual marriage?
65 posted on 03/14/2004 7:49:33 AM PST by atomicpossum (Fun pics in my profile)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: johniegrad
Thanks, bro!

Handsome is as handsome does.
66 posted on 03/14/2004 7:50:14 AM PST by little jeremiah (...men of intemperate minds can not be free. Their passions forge their fetters.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Palladin
a network of men and women who share sexual relations.

Oh...the Charles Manson model.

You sound very judgemental...

67 posted on 03/14/2004 7:52:27 AM PST by Aquinasfan (Isaiah 22:22, Rev 3:7, Mat 16:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: johniegrad
ugly bump - - - she looks like a female trotsky or one of the other bolshevik revolutionaries of 1917; she's with them in spirit, that's for sure - wanting to tear down and destroy civilization and shake her fist at God.
68 posted on 03/14/2004 8:08:02 AM PST by churchillbuff (?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff
Intriguing that this comes out the same day as the news that Fresno murderer of 9 is likely a polygamist.
69 posted on 03/14/2004 8:08:21 AM PST by Teacher317
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Teacher317
Intriguing that this comes out the same day as the news that Fresno murderer of 9 is likely a polygamist.

Actually, the story ran a few days ago in the Times, but this explosive quote was buried - so people who don't read the LA Times (and many who do) never saw it. I heard it when somebody called into MICHAEL SAVAGE radio show and read it aloud - - saying it finally convinced him to believe the warnings that Savage had been issuing.

70 posted on 03/14/2004 8:10:40 AM PST by churchillbuff (?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Arpege92
"The other goal is to 'push the parameters of sex, sexuality and family,' and in the process transform the very fabric of society."

Push the parameters of sex huh? Does that include children being sexually abused by family members and strangers as well? This whole things makes me sick!!!!!
71 posted on 03/14/2004 8:12:15 AM PST by churchillbuff (?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff
Of course lawyers would be for this. The divorce paperwork for a split-the-sheets settlement could take years to process.
72 posted on 03/14/2004 8:14:34 AM PST by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Atchafalaya
This is about limiting parental control over our children and nothing else.

That's part of it, to be sure, but not all of it. What it's really about is getting rid of all limits. Since families impose all sorts of oblgations upon their members, they have to go.

73 posted on 03/14/2004 8:15:36 AM PST by independentmind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff
What this "professor" proposes is still discrimination.

Our house has a male human, a female human, a male dog, a female dog. Also found on the property are stray cats, porcupines, squirrels, birds, deer, bear, coyote, and an occasional hyena (or is it a left-winger in drag).

Until we can get a tax deduction for each we are being treated unfairly by the tax code.

Waa waa waa waa.

;-) Being a liberal is so much fun!

Whenever I see these idiots on the tube I start humming that old rock tune that should be the new national anthem:

Gimme gimme gimme.

Gimme some more.

Gimme gimme gimme.
74 posted on 03/14/2004 8:25:54 AM PST by cgbg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins
"post-Christian west"

Now correct me if I'm wrong but didn't King David in the Old Testament have something like 700 wives? That being true there would seem to be some biblical precedent for polygamy and/or polyamory argements today.
75 posted on 03/14/2004 9:22:17 AM PST by Kerberos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: narses
Narses, I think that you are more right that any of us want to admit.
76 posted on 03/14/2004 10:46:33 AM PST by Siamese Princess
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: narses
Who is Monty Python?

I can't believe that was a serious question, but here you go... Monty Python. The Dead Parrot Sketch as what is arguably the second funniest line ever said on T.V.... "This is an ex-parrot!".

77 posted on 03/14/2004 10:57:21 AM PST by zeugma (The Great Experiment is over.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Atchafalaya
I never cared much for Wilder, but anybody who can fall off a train three times and make it seem plausible deserves some lasting recognition.
78 posted on 03/14/2004 11:36:22 AM PST by Old Professer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Kerberos
Something more interesting is when it was decided when he was to old to be King..
When he was put with his most beautiful wives and he couldn’t get it up anymore.
79 posted on 03/14/2004 11:37:26 AM PST by quietolong
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Kerberos
That was his son Solomon with all the wives and concubines...but...it doesn't change your point.

However, Christianity is not Judaism, and Jesus did not approve of polygamy. He said, "In the beginning God made them male and female and A man shall leave him father and mother and be united to his wife; and the two of them shall be one flesh."

Therefore....The Post-Christian West
80 posted on 03/14/2004 11:38:07 AM PST by xzins (Retired Army and Proud of it!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
Bump


What We Can Do To Help Defeat the "Gay" Agenda


Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links (Version 1.1)


The Stamp of Normality

81 posted on 03/14/2004 11:51:09 AM PST by EdReform (Support Free Republic - All donations are greatly appreciated. Thank you for your support!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Ken H
If you married more than one parrot, would that be polypollyamory?

And if his name was Paul and he played against Karch Kiraly would that make him a "Volleyball Pauli polypollyamory" and if he had lassie as a dog would that make it "Volleyball Pauli polypollyamory collie?"

82 posted on 03/14/2004 11:56:42 AM PST by freedumb2003 (Everyone is stupid! That is why they do all those stupid things! -- H. Simpson.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: xzins
"However, Christianity is not Judaism, and Jesus did not approve of polygamy"

Now wait, see here is the part where I get confused. It is my understanding that the Christian belief is that the bible is the inerrant word of God. But now you tell me that Jesus changed that, so if that is true then the Bible cannot be the inerrant word of God because if Jesus had to change it that would mean it wasn’t right in the first place..

So since the Old Testament is Judaism and the New Testament is Christianity does that mean that the 10 commandments no longer apply. And then didn't Jesus say that he came not to replace the law but to fulfill it. But yet you are telling me that he changed it.

Can you see the cause of my confusion?

"Therefore....The Post-Christian West"

Which, as per your explanation on this one topic, would be equivalent to the Pre-Christian East.


83 posted on 03/14/2004 1:07:36 PM PST by Kerberos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff
ugly bump - - - she looks like a female trotsky or one of the other bolshevik revolutionaries of 1917; she's with them in spirit, that's for sure - wanting to tear down and destroy civilization and shake her fist at God.

After the Communists took control in 1917 they encouraged "free love" -- promiscuity, easy divorce and legalized homosexuality and abortion. There even was serious talk of abolishing marriage itself. The social costs of family breakdown were so great (the collapse of the birthrate and children growing up to be feral beasts) that beginning about 1927 the Communists began to backtrack -- they outlawed homosexuality, restricted access to abortion, and denounced "free love" as a bourgeous invention. By WWII, the Soviet Union was an outwardly puritanical country and remained so until at least Gorbachev and perestroika.

What strikes me that even the evil Communists quickly realized the importance of a strong family and reversed course. In today's society, the obvious costs of family breakdown are widely met with a shrug, government subsidy in an attempt the rectify the damage and new laws actually codifying moral decay.

84 posted on 03/14/2004 1:15:33 PM PST by Siamese Princess
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff
Polly Amory?

I went out with her in high school.

And so did the rest of the team.

85 posted on 03/14/2004 1:21:23 PM PST by metesky ("Brethren, leave us go amongst them." Rev. Capt. Samuel Johnston Clayton - Ward Bond- The Searchers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SpyGuy
It will all add up to the death of civilization.

Not if we k, uh... never mind.

86 posted on 03/14/2004 1:24:31 PM PST by metesky ("Brethren, leave us go amongst them." Rev. Capt. Samuel Johnston Clayton - Ward Bond- The Searchers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff; Admin Moderator
Original title: Divided over gay marriage

Original titles are required.

Please change the title to the original.

87 posted on 03/14/2004 1:34:35 PM PST by metesky ("Brethren, leave us go amongst them." Rev. Capt. Samuel Johnston Clayton - Ward Bond- The Searchers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff
Sure, why not?
88 posted on 03/14/2004 1:35:50 PM PST by ladylib
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: momfirst
Duh?

What do you expect. American Constitution History is full if slipperly slopes. Roe v Wade didnt occur overnight, it began with Griswold v Connecticut in 1965.
89 posted on 03/14/2004 1:36:00 PM PST by raloxk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff
One aim, she says, is to break the stranglehold that married heterosexual couples have on health benefits and legal rights.

And there you have it. It all boils down to money.

90 posted on 03/14/2004 1:36:26 PM PST by rintense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kerberos; OrthodoxPresbyterian; P-Marlowe
Your premise, it seems to me is this: If you change something in favor of a new thing, then the original thing must have been flawed. Or, stated differently...if thing A is changed in favor of thing B, then thing A must have been flawed. Two issues that come immediately to my mind are: 1. What if your thing A has been changed by someone else into thing A1, so that it isn't really the thing A that you proposed? 2. Is an update, based on a new stage of a staged process, indicative of flaws in thing A, or is it based on advances getting us to thing B?
91 posted on 03/14/2004 1:43:16 PM PST by xzins (Retired Army and Proud of it!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: xzins
"Your premise, it seems to me is this: If you change something in favor of a new thing, then the original thing must have been flawed."

Only when the attribute of inerrant in assigned to thing A. That would be akin to what the framers tried to claim in the DOI, that there were going to create a more "perfect" union.
92 posted on 03/14/2004 2:17:13 PM PST by Kerberos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Kerberos; OrthodoxPresbyterian; P-Marlowe
If the attribute of perfection is ascribed to thing A, then one must be sure to understand clearly the original thing A and not a subsequent misunderstanding of thing A. Thing A1 is not thing A.

Jesus clearly says that monogamy is the original "thing A."

The fact that stories are recounted of those who practiced a thing A1 AND who were considered acceptable to God, does not mean that God did any more than allow a relationship with those who did less than his original intent. Moses murdered a man, but God still had a relationship with him. Does that indicate God's approval of murder? Hardly, because God used the very same Moses to relay the command that says, "Thou shalt not murder."

It indicates a willingness on God's part to be both merciful and to work with the material at hand.

93 posted on 03/14/2004 2:32:11 PM PST by xzins (Retired Army and Proud of it!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Kerberos
The Declaration of Independence never claims that they are trying to form "a more perfect union". Why would they do that when the Founders were intent on disunion from Britain?

You are thinking of the Preamble to the Constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

94 posted on 03/14/2004 4:12:27 PM PST by metesky ("Brethren, leave us go amongst them." Rev. Capt. Samuel Johnston Clayton - Ward Bond- The Searchers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: metesky
You're right, my mistake.
95 posted on 03/14/2004 4:27:19 PM PST by Kerberos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Kerberos
You're right, my mistake.

Man, if I had a nickle for every one of mine...

96 posted on 03/14/2004 5:25:35 PM PST by metesky ("Brethren, leave us go amongst them." Rev. Capt. Samuel Johnston Clayton - Ward Bond- The Searchers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Siamese Princess
I hope not, but I think so, if you get my meaning.
97 posted on 03/14/2004 5:45:00 PM PST by narses (If you want OFF or ON my Ping list, please email me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: zeugma
TV has never been big in my life. He sounds funny, in a british kinda way.
98 posted on 03/14/2004 5:46:13 PM PST by narses (If you want OFF or ON my Ping list, please email me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: xzins
You frame your arguments well, so let us continue.

“Your premise, it seems to me is this: If you change something in favor of a new thing, then the original thing must have been flawed. Or, stated differently...if thing A is changed in favor of thing B, then thing A must have been flawed.”

No, not flawed, but not perfect, the item that immediately comes to mind is the soap commercials of many, many years, “: New and improved.,” allegedly the soap worked, but now it will work better. If you have something that is working correctly then there is no need to change it, to do so would be foolish. One looks to change something when they see there would be a benefit from doing so, thereby justifying the cost involvement. Or to rely on a cliché, “Necessity is the Mother of Invention.”

But I will accept your argument, as it relates to Solomon and his many wives that perhaps God was in a good mood that day and decided to show forgiveness this time. Forgiveness is a product of compassion and compassion is a product of love. So if the premise is that God is perfect, love has to be an attribute of God. But that brings me to my next question that maybe you can help with.

Theology starts from the premise that God is perfect, which makes sense in that who is going to worship a God that makes mistakes. But then God tells us early on in the Bible that he is a jealous God, and we can see from further text that when his jealousy is aroused he can be very quick to anger and go on a extensive killing spree. I mean the guy readily becomes homicidal.

Now jealousy is thought to be a defect in character and possibly even a psychiatric disorder when it becomes real serious. It is usually the result of a low sense of self-esteem or a sense of not being worthy of love. So that in severe cases the afflicted person will try to entrap someone by getting him or her to say they love them and then the afflicted person will continuously look for ways in which they can prove that the other person is lying, thereby reconfirming their original notion that they are not worthy of love. This can often be part of the basis of an abusive relationship that women get into which results in their being beaten and sometimes murdered.

And anger, which God is very prone to, is nothing more than fear trying to pass itself off as something else.

So I am having a problem with reconciling a God that is thought to be perfect who suffers from an emotional disorder.
99 posted on 03/17/2004 10:50:13 AM PST by Kerberos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

Comment #100 Removed by Moderator


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson