(RNS) The Catholic bishops’ point man on opposing same-sex marriage defended his decision to take part in Thursday’s March for Marriage in Washington, saying support for traditional man-woman marriage is not “anti-LGBT … anti-anyone or anti-anything.”

San Francisco's Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone speaks at the 2013 March for Marriage event in Washington, D.C.

San Francisco’s Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone speaks at the 2013 March for Marriage event in Washington, D.C. Creative Commons image by The American Life League

The June 19 march aims at affirming “the great good of bringing the two halves of humanity together so that a man and a woman may bond with each other and with any children who come from their union,” San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone wrote Monday (June 16) in response to critics who asked him not to attend the rally.

This is the second year the march has been held, and despite repeated setbacks in the courts and in public opinion, organizers hope to bring thousands of supporters to march from the U.S. Capitol to the Supreme Court. Speakers include two former Republican presidential candidates, Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum.

Cordileone’s critics, led by dozens of religious activists and California politicians including Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, said the demonstration is sponsored by “some of the nation’s most virulently anti-LGBT organizations and leaders.” They singled out the National Organization for Marriage and the Family Research Council.

Pelosi told Cordileone in a letter that the group’s views were “venom masquerading as virtue.” Critics who signed another letter to Cordileone said that the National Organization for Marriage “connects homosexuality with pedophilia and incest” and that the Family Research Council has been designated a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center because of the group’s harsh rhetoric.

Cordileone said the characterizations of the organizations are based on misinterpretations or are “simply factually incorrect.”

“Rest assured that if the point of this event were to single out a group of individuals and target them for hatred, I most certainly would not be there,” wrote the archbishop, who leads the Subcommittee for the Promotion and Defense of Marriage of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

Cordileone also turned the tables on his critics, claiming that “there is plenty of offensive rhetoric” against same-sex marriage opponents. He said that while gay people have historically been subjected to violence and retribution, now gay marriage foes are losing their jobs for their views or even suffering physical assaults.

He closed by asking his critics not to stereotype him and his allies but to “get to know us first as fellow human beings.”

“In the end, love is the answer, and this can happen even between people with such deep disagreements,” he wrote. “That may sound fanciful and far-fetched, but it is true, it is possible … When we come together seeking to understand the other with good will, miracles can happen.”

Interestingly, both sides invoked Pope Francis, who when asked about the church’s attitude toward gay people famously replied: “Who am I to judge?”

Cordileone asked his critics not to judge church leaders, and his critics said church leaders should not judge gay people.

KRE/MG END GIBSON

57 Comments

  1. “He closed by asking his critics not to stereotype him and his allies but to “get to know us first as fellow human beings.”

    We already have evidence of their rhetoric and actions. What is there that we haven’t seen already? No need to stereotype when you have actual actions and rhetoric to criticize him for.

    The bishop has provided financial and political aid in the past in order to strip gays of marriage rights in California. He supports rather vile rhetoric demonizing gays and describes marriage equality as “work of the evil one”.

    Now he wants a little sympathy from people he showed none to.

    • You are not disputing what I said. You agree with him. Fine.

      Are you expecting everyone else to try to get to know the real Doc which is underneath all that, like the bishop?

  2. The Great God Pan

    I miss Fred Phelps. At least he was honest.

    By the way, the good Archbishop was arrested just a few years ago for driving around drunk. How many people are killed every year by drunk drivers like Archbishop Cordileone? I’ve never heard of anyone being killed as a result of a gay marriage.

    • Shame on you. The Archbishop is trying to justify his actions. Remember so many people saying I am not anti Jew…I am pro-German. You can try and spin it any way you want sir….but it will still be wrong

    • Let us pray for the Archbishop. The Church needs to be the light, but he is distorting the very essence of the preaching of Jesus.

      He “most certainly would not be there”.

        • Because he isn’t doing that.

          If that was the case he would be doing it from a pulpit and not performing gay weddings. He wants to defend God’s view of marriage, then he can do it within the walls of his church.

          Instead, he is attacking civil liberties of others and expecting our secular minded laws to adopt his religious views in a blatantly discriminatory manner. He crosses the line from priest acting on behalf of a church to politician.

    • Bill…I am just going to be praying against this man. He is wrong and he is aligning himself with a sinking ship. Our faith needs better leaders or it will go the way of NOM.

      • What “faith”? A faith that approves of legalized gay marriage is no faith at all. It would be far more honest to just sign up with Atheism and get it over with!

        • Doc, don’t ever make an argument about free exercise of religion or moan about your “religious freedom being infringed upon”.

          This is one of many instances where you have shown no respect for the concept.

      • The Catholic Church has existed for 2,000 years and faced many opponents: Romans, NAZIs, KKKers, Communists, violent atheists and homosexuals.

        Why does standing up for God’s definition of marriage make the church look like a sinking ship?

        • @Bill,

          The Catholic Church is a criminal organization. It has worse things to worry about than what sorts of people get married.

          Anyone who needs to consult a holy book
          from 2000 years ago to find out what is right or moral has a desperate lack of self respect.

          • @Bill,

            The Catholic church is a criminal organization.

            1. It continues to aid, abet, support, house and hide a vast network of rapist pedophile priests. Archbishop Bernie Law, the kingpin of the Boston pedophile priest network is under state protection in the Vatican out of the reach of tribunals.

            2. The Catholic Church supports a network of criminal priests and nuns – some of whom are murderers like Fr. Anatole Seromba of Rwanda who killed 2000 innocent people and was hidden for years by the Pope himself until the international tribunal for justice in Rwanda captured him and threw him in prison.

            3. And 20 million people killed by Catholic refusal to offer condoms to married women who begged to be saved from their AIDS infected husbands across Africa. “AIDS is bad but condoms are worse” – Pope John Paul II. The Pope KNEW that condoms would prevent the virus spread and denied access to condoms throughout all Catholic clinics in Africa.

            For these crimes against humanity among others the Vatican is nothing but organized criminal enterprise.

            For shame.

      • For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.
        2 Timothy 4:3

  3. Soo..The Archbishop has joined the witch burners.

    Religion is such a disgrace.
    There is no safe way to practice it. There should be a warning label
    on every Bible and on the door of every house of ‘worship’.

    “WARNING: There is no safe way to use this product.
    It has been shown to damage
    critical thinking skills, impair one’s judgement
    and destroys one’s humanity.”

    What trash.
    I dismiss his cancerous position with the wave of my bitter hand.

  4. Deacon John M. Bresnahan

    Because someone disagrees with you doesn’t mean they hate you. In fact some philosophers say to disagree with someone in order to get them to turn away from what one genuinely believes are harmful acts is an act of love toward the one ensnared by the harmful acts. (harmful to the individual or society or both)..
    But accusing others of hatred has become a convenient smear in American politics.

    • @Deacon John M. Bresnahan,

      The Archbishop is taking a public stand against the freedoms of certain citizens because of their nature.

      If he were against Down Syndrome Children using the public swing set would that be justified? Of course not.

      By your analysis it would be justified for a racist minister
      to forbid the marriage of a black man and a white woman
      because to marry them would ‘do them harm’ according to racist principles.

      Where is the evidence that being gay harms anyone?
      Where is your evidence that gay marriages harm anyone?

      I’m not accusing the Archbishop of merely being hateful toward gays. He has a right to hate whomever he wants for whatever racist reason.

      I’m accusing the Archbishop of being inhumane and unfair by promoting a public policy which would prevent gay people from participating fully in society!

    • Deacon, even you must believe that you are known by the company you keep. NOM et al, undoubtedly spew hateful rhetoric, then plead religion to excuse it. No philosophers support using false reasoning to see a faithful, loving consensual relationship as a harmful act.

    • I’m not saying the Archbishop hates us. What I am saying is he is using gay marriage as a red herring. If he really wanted to help marriage he should counsel the 50% of his flock who operates under the concept of drive thru marriages which leave carnage and broken families in their wake. The more important reason I don’t respect this nan goes back to his first weeks in SF. Arrested for driving drunk? Oh yeah…he just did 10 Hail Marys and he wiped it all away. What if he had killed your child? This man needs to go back from where he came. I hope Pope Francis will send us a real leader.

    • Its not that people disagree with him. Its that he is asking for a level of civility from opponents that he does not give to them.

      The man actively attacks civil liberties of others, making lame excuses for it and is whining for a little sympathy. I don’t mind that he has a hostile position, but he should own up to it.

  5. Richard Hardy

    Though I advocated AB Cordelione not go, if he insists on going to the March for Marriage, he should spend as much time proclaiming that hatred and discrimination against LBGT people is unacceptable and anti- Christian as he does defending marriage for only straight people. If he does not do that in his speech he will have reneged on his role as pastor to all people. Pope Francis has clearly said that all must be free from physical and verbal violence. And in that case, he should have the honesty to resign his position and spend his life in a monastery praying.

    • From a Dallas-area blog…

      “San Francisco used to be a great town. A blue collar, ship-building, merchant marine and navy town. It used to have a lot of manufacturing. But now it is known for one thing, and one thing only.

      “It is America’s Sodom, a city so closely identified with one act that priests use “the San Francisco vice” as a pseudonym for unspeakable acts.

      Into this horror has stepped Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone…”

        • We went to a wedding in Texas some years ago. When we told people where we were going, many liberal friends were, well, disgusted. Hey, Texas is a big place, all kinds of people live there. Sure it is a red state, but even here in New Jersey (the gold standard for states!) we have a republican governor.

          Don’t be so mean about the south.

          • @Dudley Jones,

            Point taken. However….

            Here’s proof that God does not exist:

            “Now, therefore, I, Rick Perry, Governor of Texas, under the authority vested in me by the Constitution and Statutes of the State of Texas, do hereby proclaim the three-day period from Friday, April 22, 2011, to Sunday, April 24, 2011, as Days of Prayer for Rain in the State of Texas.”

            This was followed by 7 months
            of searing drought and wildfires.

            The rains finally came….. during The Atheist Convention in October 2011!
            God played a joke.
            Because that is what God is good for. A joke.

  6. So here is what I don’t get, fellow “religiously” thinking posters on this blog: If churches allow gay marriage…a traditionally big time no-no for most Christian doctrine, how will the church then look at me and examine me and call ANYTHING I do “sinful”? Online porn better be allowed for straights and married people if they let in the gays. What grounds would they then have to tell me watching online porn is not what jesus would do and therefore un-christian? Further, if gay married couplers are allowed in, is it then gonna be against doctrine for THEM to look at online porn? Or would the religious leaders then be so shell shocked that they wouldn’t condemn any lifestyle choice of any gay married individual who was a member?

    Stand for everything? Then you stand for nothing.

    A religious organization that you cannot observe as different and separate from the society surrounding it is not a religious group at all. Its just more of the same society, living as before, under a different name.

    • You really need to be told online porn is wrong? If you think it is don’t do it. But stop the torch and pitchfork strategy against gays and lesbians getting married. They are trying to live good lives.

      • Thanks for your response. Regarding “they are trying to live good lives”….see Folsom street fair. See the introduction of the first openly gay fictional character in how to trainyour dragon part deuce, a film intended for audiences whose sexuality is years away. I believe they are trying to recruit and win ideological points as much as any other group today. “Good” is a relative term. The fight among various groups today subscribing to a specific worldview is for theright to define exactly what is “good”.

    • There are two problems with that argument:

      1. It is and never will be an issue whether a CHURCH adopts marriage equality. It is a civil law matter. They care that GOVERNMENT adopts it first and foremost. They care that a church is involved in the affairs of civil law. But in terms of church doctrine, it is of concern only to parishoners and does not require anything outside of church walls.

      2. Churches revise their doctrine ALL THE TIME as society changes. Southern Baptists officially dropped the racially inflammatory doctrines they were founded upon. The Catholic church renounced its former antisemitism, its sectarian animosities towards the Orthodox Church and Protestant faiths, and toned down its rhetoric on divorce severely. Mormons dropped their polygamy and accepted black bishops.

      The idea that one change renders the entire authority of the church meaningless has never been true. Its less a slippery slope and more like a rocky tree-lined gentle sloped hillside.

      • Thanks for your response. Agreed to the excellent points you made in one and two. The post I originally made relayed the internal discussion my small congregation had on the topic recently. These points were brought up about online porn and it pretty much ended up in silence. No one really knew how to respond.

        • The bit about online porn is irrelevant, a really bad analogy, incoherent, and was designed to provoke people who typically give an unthinking hair trigger response when certain words are spoken in their presence.

          Of course it should end in silence. It was silly.

          • I was pretty clear with my second point that there is a long history of major changes to a church’s doctrine. I even supported it with factual references. Your response does not address it.

            “It seriously shut down acongragational dialogue on the subject.”

            Because it was silly, provocative and entirely off topic. I would shut down after that as well and slowly walk away from the person who brought it up.

            I don’t care how serious you take me. I have seen very little of you worth taking seriously, Mr. “they must be executed”. :)

            I understand the point being made, its not as brilliant as you think it is. I just thought it was not really particularly based in real world thinking, history or how people actually act. People revise what they consider important religious doctrine all the time. Churches do this on a fairly regular basis. You don’t think slavery or selling your daughter into marriage is a good idea, right? There you go. My point is made.

            The argument you made actually follows a very typical form of argument fundamentalists engage in all the time. False dichotomy, all or nothing approach. The idea that if something is not an absolute, is not entirely of a single type or form, it is useless. They use this to argue for Biblical literalism, to avoid very obvious issues, and to shut down any form of dissent or rational discussion.

            For example it is rather silly to say, “I have to believe in talking reptiles like the serpent in the Garden of Eden, otherwise the entire Bible is garbage”. The overwhelming majority of adherents to the Bible do not believe that to be true. But the approach is a major part of fundamentalist arguments.

            Whatever your opinion is on porn is an irrelevant diversion and a bad analogy. Plus its in poor taste for the setting. A church group is especially egregiously bad because of the sensitivities of the crowd.

            People who engage in arguments entirely based on analogy usually can’t discuss a topic on its own facts or merits.

  7. Can you tell me why murder is wrong? Can you tell me why stealing is wrong? Can you tell me why polygamy is wrong? Can you tell me why war is wrong? Can you tell me why “cheating on a spouse is wrong?” Can you tell me why beating your child is wrong?

    • @unkown,

      Secular morality is vastly superior to religious ‘morality’.

      Morality is to do the right thing no matter what you are told.
      Religion is doing what you are told no matter what is right.

      Obedience and fear are not reliable things upon which to build morality.
      Obedience and fear are a disgrace to humanity.

          • You asked, “How can *I* know what is right or wrong?

            I meaning *Me*? How do I know?
            In my case, I just decide. I always know right and wrong.

            But you asked again, “*How* can I know what is right or wrong?”

            I assumed you were asking the smarter question which was HOW can one know right from wrong – as in, ‘what method are you using?’ but apparently that doesn’t interest you.

            But you asked again, ” How can *I know* what is right or wrong?”

            I suppose you mean You? But this is ridiculous. Because for you, I have no clue whether you know right from wrong.
            It depends whether or not you are capable identifying right and wrong on your own.

            Like I indicated before, your question suffers for the way you are asking it. You should be asking “How does one determine what is right and what is wrong especially if you are an Atheist?”

            But you are repeatedly insisting that is not your question!

            So I’ll answer your very poor question
            in the awful way you are asking it.

            You asked, “How do *I know* what is right or what is wrong”

            You appear to not know.
            That is the answer.

          • @Unknown,

            “How does one determine what is right or what is wrong?”

            We are born with a natural capacity for empathy and compassion thanks to millions of years of evolution within social groups. This is how we know what ‘feels right’ and what ‘feels wrong’.

            It could also be described as what ‘feels fair’ and what ‘feels unfair’. All primates (and most other mammals) show signs of this sense of fairness. We are not descended from primates – WE ARE primates.

            This sense of fairness is the source of the ancient Golden Rule: ‘Do not do to others that which you would not want done to you’ – the oldest moral philosophy. Many versions existed in prehistory. Our continued existence is evidence of that. We would not have survived this long without it.

            One must weigh the likely outcome of a certain course of action to determine how harmful it will be to others.

            If the course of action will cause unnecessary harm we call it ‘wrong’ and we sense the unfairness of it. If the course of action results in lessening of unnecessary harm we call it ‘good’ and we sense the ‘fairness’ of it.

            Some examples:

            Destroying the Nazis was “right” because Hitler was causing unnecessary harm. On balance destroying Hitler’s army was good.

            The Nazis killing of Jews was “wrong” because it caused unnecessary harm. It was unfair.

            Getting a divorce may be right or wrong depending on which course of action lessens unnecessary harm.

            Killing someone is wrong if it causes unnecessary harm.
            Killing someone is right if it lessens unnecessary harm.

            And so on.

            You know right and wrong because you are born with a ‘sense of fairness’. Almost everybody has it.

            Those who have no ability to feel empathy or lack a ‘sense of fairness’ are called psychopaths and they are the ones who often cause a lot of harm. Fortunately, they are a small percentage of the population.

            That is why I said before, “You know right from wrong and so do I.”

            HOWEVER,
            When we add God’s ‘sense of fairness’ (without having the foggiest idea about what that means) we are doomed to cause harm to other people.

            WHY?
            Because God’s ‘sense of fairness’ is UNKNOWABLE can only be speculated on and asserted and as such is a wild card on human interactions. EVERY TRIBE asserts different rules on what “GOD WANTS”.

            God, in fact, seems to have no sense of fairness whatsoever – so, like the psychopath – following God’s various Holy Books is guaranteed to do harm, be otherwise catastrophic and is literally ‘inhuman’.

            God’s ‘sense of fairness’ is what religious people are forever arguing about – as if it could be determined!
            Yet it needs to be put in its place before anyone pursues ‘God’s will’ – the most dangerous, needless harms are likely to result.

          • @ATHEIST Max – That is really excellent. I Googled the development of social interaction in hominids and primates and it bears out some of what you are saying. There is quite a lot of literature on it. I’m surprised it isn’t more routinely referred to on matters of morality in social systems.
            The Youtube example of monkeys with grapes and celery is hilarious if you haven’t seen it. Fairness does seem to be an innate feature.

          • Though it sounds good, there has never been a Hitler ape, a Joseph Stalin ape, or a Nero ape. These men thought conquest and murder of millions was O. K. Why? (They were atheists, haters of Christians and Jews specifically.)

            Also, why is it that no other animal in all of the universe has religion? Why do only our species have religion? Why do we link religion to morality or immorality?

            Where is the most critical piece of evidence to evolution, the “Missing Link”? Why are we not evolving anymore?

            Another thing, where did the golden rule come from? Do all apes practice that golden rule? If they “All” practice the golden rule than why don’t we if we are apes? If they do not, why were they not born with that genetic moral code? If there is a lack than surely that is our problem, but who is to tell those morally deficient people that they are wrong if there are only feelings to guide us? By the way feelings have guided me to Christ, but not any normal feelings. These feelings were feelings I have never in my life experienced until I met that man from Galilee, Jesus. I feel peace, love, joy, patience, and hope.Those are good feelings, but I wasn’t born with them. Why not? Not only that, but if it is made up in our minds, why do we not see apes doing the same thing? Why can we build skyscrapers that are thousands of feet high, but apes can only do smart things if we humans train them?

          • @Unknown,

            This needs to be addressed:

            You said, “Though it sounds good, there has never been a Hitler ape, a Joseph Stalin ape, or a Nero ape. These men thought conquest and murder of millions was O. K. Why? (They were atheists, haters of Christians and Jews specifically.)”

            These Straw-men are NOT examples of Atheism:

            1. Stalin was a self-appointed intermediary (CZAR) between God and the religion of the state. He demanded FAITH in that religion including the miracles of Lysenko, or death.
            That is not Atheism – it is FAITH.

            2. Pol Pot was a Theravada Buddhist who ‘divined supernatural heaven’ of which he appointed himself leader and demanded allegiance as head of the religion of the state of Cambodia. He was against all education and science. What Atheist ever did that?
            That is not Atheism – it is FAITH.

            3. Hitler and his SS were sworn Catholics and Christians, hailed allegiance to the Fuhrer (father) under ‘God’, demanded faith in the divinity of the Aryan Race and demanded each Nazi wore the belt buckle which read ‘God on our side’ (“Gott Mit Uns”) or God With Us. Hitler’s first peace treaty was the Vatican Koncordat in 1933 where the church swore allegiance to Hitler and Hitler would choose the Bishops for Germany.
            Hitler’s hatred of Jews was founded on the writings of Martin Luther, he declared Christ ‘his model of the great soldier’ fighting against the evil of the Jews. (Mein Kampf) His favorite words of Jesus ended the Parable of the Minas; “Execute them in front of me.” – Jesus(Luke 19:27)
            That is not Atheism – it is FAITH.

            4. Emperor Hirohito, was the cult of the sun god – the sacrificial Kamikazes and the holy war of ‘sacred’ Japan joining the Axis Powers against the infidel America.
            That is not Atheism – it is FAITH

            5. North Korea is the most religious country on earth.
            Its current leader had a supernatural birth where the birds sang in Korean. All of the subjects must worship the Dear Leader who has supernatural powers or be executed.
            That is not Atheism – it is FAITH.

            However, the United States Constitution which remains the only godless constitution in the world, is faithless. The evidence that people can govern themselves exists. By contrast, there is no evidence that god can govern anything.

            Show me an example where the non-religious democratic ideals of Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Voltaire and Lucretius spiraled into torture, brutality and dictatorship
            and we’ll have a level playing field”

            Please don’t slander Atheism.

            —-

            “Where is the most critical piece of evidence to evolution,
            the “Missing Link”? Why are we not evolving anymore?

            There are THOUSANDS of missing links! We have found them all. And WE ARE EVOLVING STILL. Chromosome 2 and human DNA prove evolution is true.
            And there is too much evidence of it – I’m not going to teach you science. I don’t have time. Whether you ‘believe’ it or not, science has proven it as fact.

            —–

            “Another thing, where did the golden rule come from? Do all apes practice that golden rule? If they “All” practice the golden rule than why don’t we if we are apes? If they do not, why were they not born with that genetic moral code?”

            But APES DO HAVE THE GOLDEN RULE – they do live by a sense of fairness. I was clear about that. Look up ‘fairness in the the animal kingdom’ for the studies and read them yourself.
            Fairness is the Golden Rule. Fairness also means ‘eye for an eye’.
            Non-hominid Apes do have dominant males with ‘type A’ male personalities. But apes have not developed religion for many reasons. For one thing, They do not appear to territorial or have a wide vocabulary or tribalist tendencies. We evolved all of those traits.
            Speech plus tribalism is what religion is. These are tools used to maximize the power of a group so they can take things from other tribes when resources are low.

            —-

            “who is to tell those morally deficient people that they are wrong if there are only feelings to guide us? By the way feelings have guided me to Christ, but not any normal feelings. These feelings were feelings I have never in my life experienced until I met that man from Galilee, Jesus. I feel peace, love, joy, patience, and hope.Those are good feelings, but I wasn’t born with them.”

            Yes. You were BORN WITH THEM. Evolution put that desire for a parent into YOUR BRAIN. The desire to find a competent, loving parent who will protect you in all circumstances is absolutely crucial to human development – you need a parent when you are born or you will die. Evolution has given you this so that you will survive and find your REAL PARENT.
            It is very comforting to believe in God (All religions produce this feeling not just Jesus) because you are tapping into that infantile place in your brain which once needed a parent figure. It is very comforting – but it is INFANTILE. And I say that word ‘infantile’ because it is literally from the infant brain.
            Religion stunts our growth as humans by playing with the psychological need for a parent figure. Most of us grow out of this when we move into adolescence but Religious institutions – in their ignorance – have perpetuated an inexcusable level of irresponsibility and childishness in grown ups!

            —-

            “why do we not see apes doing the same thing? Why can we build skyscrapers that are thousands of feet high, but apes can only do smart things if we humans train them?”

            You apparently do not care to learn about evolution. Perhaps because you are very afraid of knowledge – knowledge will rock your boat and break up your world view.
            We are descended from the branch of life called hominids which are a kind of great ape. Only those who could stand on two legs survived during the African climate of 500,000 years ago IN THE PARTICULAR PART OF AFRICA where OUR particular branch of ape lived.

            The same science which makes your computer work has confirmed all of this to be true.
            You have to face it or reject it – but don’t say it isn’t true.
            Your children and your grandchildren will laugh. There is simply no excuse in the age of the internet to be ignorant anymore of science or Evolution.

            http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/what-evidence-supports-the-theory-of-evolution.html

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comments with many links may be automatically held for moderation.