Jesus gives a possible answer to the same-sex marriage question

 

The recent Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marital unions has left a sour taste in the mouths of those opposed to it on moral and religious grounds. In fact, for many Evangelical Christians, traditional marriage advocates, as well as political and religious Conservatives, this new law is a bitter pill to swallow; but what would Jesus say? It appears that we might at last finally have a clue, and it has been hiding in plain sight after all. In the 19th chapter gospel of Matthew Jesus was asked a question regarding divorce by his religious antagonists, the Pharisees. In verse 4 Jesus said: “Have you not read that at the beginning the Creator (God) made [them] male and female?” He continues with an explanation about the exceptions that allow for the marital bond to be broken, and the disciples say in verse 10: “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, [then] it is better not to marry.” Jesus’ reply to them, found in verse 11, was: “Not everyone can accept this word, but only to those [for whom] it is given.”

Now, that should have been the end of the matter but curiously or inexplicably Jesus adds more, of which special notice should be given to the following statement found in verse 12: “For some are eunuchs because they are born that way from their mother’s womb; others because they were [have been] made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage for the kingdom of God’s sake [like celibate priests and nuns??]. Why did Jesus make this statement and include it here on the issue of issue of marriage, and more broadly, what does being a eunuch have to do with anything? According to Holman’s Bible Dictionary a ‘eunuch’ is a castrated male, or rather a male who does not have testes and/or male genitalia. The Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary expands the meaning of ‘castrate’ to include not only males, but females who have been deprived of their ovaries [and/or fallopian tubes??]. This condition could well affect or influence physical development, hormonal levels, and or gender identity which is opposite in orientation to the outward biological appearance. In the modern sense the person could be born into the wrong body. Coincidentally, In the book of Genesis (Cp. 37: 36; 39: 1, 6b-7) where the Patriarch Joseph becomes a servant of Potiphar, the Pharaoh’s “officer” and captain of the bodyguard, the Hebrew word for officer is the word s’ris/saris (“eunuch”) and it is the same word used by Jesus. This could very well explain the behavior of Potiphar’s wife in wanting Joseph to have sexual relations with her because her husband was incapable of performing the act. Be that as it may, the key point here is, I think, one of attitude where Jesus says, “The one who can accept this should accept it.” Can anything else more be said about the issue or could it be plainer than this?

 

Robert Randle
776 Commerce St Apt B11
Tacoma, WA 98402
July 27, 2015
robertrandle51@yahoo.com

Displaying the Confederate flag is not the real issue

I might be one of the few Black Americans in America not overly agitated or outraged with seeing the Confederate flag; whether worn as a tee-shirt, hanging from a flagpole, or displayed as a decal on a car. As a side note, I confess to watching every episode of “The Dukes of Hazzard” with actors John Schneider and Tom Wopat driving the General Lee 1969 Dodge Charger. And who can forget the little southern darling Catherine Bach wearing those ‘daisy dukes’ shorts? It was as much fun as Burt Reynolds and Sally Field outwit and outdrive Sheriff Buford T. Justice (actor Jackie Gleason) in the 1970’s Pontiac Trans Am. I digress for the sake of nostalgia, now back to the point at hand. I am wearied to the depth of my soul from hearing the mounting calls for banning displaying the Confederate flag, especially when there is an incident involving racial violence, or more specifically, murder. The Confederate flag hoisted by General Robert E. Lee’s rebel army epitomized the brutality and inhumanity of human bondage known as ‘chattel’ slavery. The thing is, though, slavery wasn’t just a southern problem, but in the broader context it was an American problem- the South was just the favorite poster child of this despicable practice that was legally sanctioned. If one would read some of the slave narratives and other historical documents, the North wasn’t necessarily so hospitable and accommodating to the runaway slaves or Freedmen that came into their territories, either.

 

In one of my college classes I learned that the South unanimously outlawed slavery [not just the importation of new slaves], and the resolution passed eight times in the U.S. House of Representatives before being defeated in the U.S. Senate every time the matter came up. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed in Texas v Johnson that the U.S. flag is protected speech under the First Amendment, and I would think that it includes the Old Confederate flag as well. Justice Brennan’s majority opinion is insightful on this point, in which he writes that a flag represents a symbol with a determinate range of meanings- if there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment is that the Government {State or Federal] may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society [or certain segments with it] finds the idea itself oppressive [morally objectionable], or disgraceful. To me this is the heart of the matter, even if I would like it to be otherwise. Actually, I am not concerned about the flag whatsoever because it means different things to different people. Not displaying the flag will not erase or eradicate this nation’s shameful legacy of slavery, change people’s hearts, or amend policies and practices that have disenfranchised people of color for centuries. I for one, want to see the Confederate flag displayed as a reminder of America’s shame that both sides of the Mason/Dixon line that each region is equally culpable in their exploitation of the blood, sweat, tears, and much more, of Black people, especially those from Africa. Let it be as an enduring symbol to the wealth and prosperity that have made America one of the greatest nations on earth, economically speaking, at the expense of cheap, slave labor.

 

A flag cannot hurt me but a group of White men wearing a white pointed hood, a white robe with the insignia of a cross on the front can; or a White male police officer with a badge on his chest and a gun on his hip can deprive me of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness whether I am approaching him from the front or running away with my back to him. It doesn’t matter which scenario it is because the outcome is almost nearly the same; the perpetrator of such a crime almost always gets away with it. The Federal Hate Crimes statute is almost a joke because the bar is set so high that it is very unlikely to get a conviction. I do not know why Prosecutors at the local level don’t just seek indictments for First degree Manslaughter, or if going the Federal Appeals Court route on Constitutional grounds, why not seek redress of grievances based on violation of the Fifth Amendment (part b) by being deprived of Life, Liberty, or Property without Due Process? Anyway, I sort of got into some of my Law classes in college mindset so I want to tell all those ‘Dixiecrats’ to embrace your history, tradition, culture, and your personal truth, and be proud of it; that is, if you can with a clear conscience. I can at least have some semblance of respect for people who are out in the open about where they sit on the racial fence, at least,  than those paternalistic White liberal apologists who believe that opposing them is some sort of moral high ground, or one more step taken in the long march toward justice and equality-really? As a final thought, I am wondering if there are any leftover Union flags that General Ulysses S. Grant’s troops carried into battle against the Rebs, maybe they could be flown over the capitols in the Blue states.

 

 

Robert Randle

776 Commerce St Apt B11

Tacoma, WA 98402

July 20, 2015

robertrandle51@yahoo.com

 

 

Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage not the end of the debate

The Supreme Court decision on June 26, 2015 affirming marriage equality for same-sex couples as guaranteed under the “Due Process” of the Fourteenth Amendment. Should have settled the matter, but did it? One could argue for all practical reasons that the 5-4 split decision has legalized same-sex union in all fifty states, and is a slam dunk for all gay/lesbian couples as well as their supporters. However, I think that there are other sociological, anthropological, psychological, historical, cultural and religious concerns that are beyond the Court’s authority to remedy a redress of grievances. For one thing, what becomes of marriage- or rather should it be redefined as a ‘genderless’ institution, and by what right or authority should it be thus rendered? Does or will this change the meaning of what constitutes a family? Let’s start our search into the dim past and work our way to the present, letting Nature be our guide.

In all or nearly all biological forms, especially in the Animal Kingdom, there are complementary pairings of opposites (male/female). The Plant Kingdom may be somewhat different because of ‘parthenogenesis’ as well as the cell divisions of certain organisms without a skeletal system. The process of reproduction allows for the continuity of the species and is an evolutionary survival mechanism. Humans are at the highest stage of brain development and organizing complex social structures (ants and bees might challenge the last point, though). Anyway, humans progressed from primitive hunter-gather nomads to more advanced pastoralists, and then agriculturalists, who banded together as clans, tribes, building villages, towns, city-states, kingdoms and empires. Resource allocation and labor became essential among groups who now had interests as members of the same family apart from and separate of the communal group. The continuity of the family as far as inheritance and property rights became of paramount importance and procreation, whether in marriage or not, became essential and this could only occur between a male and female. Of course not all women can have children as some were infertile (“barren”) and there were high levels of infant mortality. Some women had miscarriages, stillborn babies, and some men could not impregnate women because of some type of dysfunction (no Urologist back in those earliest of days).

So, where am I going with this? I am simply stating that it is consistent in Nature, with very little variation, if any significant measurable level,  that there is a mutual attraction or affinity between opposites which complement each other and leads to the species continuing to  replenish, grow, and exist. The entire human historical records has shown evidence of people who experienced same-sex relationships and gender classifications that were not strictly limited to binary constructs but were more diverse to include masculine females, feminine males, and even those who were  referred to as having “two-spirits” (Hermaphrodite??). There were doubtless some kind of ceremony of joining between two persons of the same gender identity (biology notwithstanding) in a lifelong commitment of love and mutual devotion. Now, let’s rejoin the discussion or debate in the present time. I think one of the reasons that make same-sex marriage or even the broader subject of “gay rights” is the religious dimension. All the biblical texts (ten or so), at least in the Christian bible, that seem to identify and condemn homosexuality, some of the best theologians and scholars are split on the interpretation of these passages as pertaining to the experiences, especially regarding marital unions, as the such are experienced in modern times.

It is rather dubious that the term translated “sodomite” or individuals engaged in temple prostitution to worship a pagan god (deity) with a temple pries/priestess of the same gender of the petitioner or supplicant, specifically refer to same-sex marital unions nowadays. The song by Lady Gaga “Born this Way” has some relevance in this matter, and a one-size-fits-all approach does not work as it is insulting, mean-spirited, and ignorant. Studies in Sex and Gender Sociology reveal that roughly 1%-2% of all births in America are sexually indeterminate- the non-clinical meaning is that the person is IN THE WRONG BODY. The population in this country is around 330 million people, so that amounts to about 3.3 to 6.6 million persons went through some kind of gender assignment intervention when they were born, or that certainly they will have to make some decision about their gender identity because of the way their body developed or will in the future, because such is not consistent with their biological appearance. Anyway, the best approach is that of compassion and understanding, not condemnation and ridicule.

 

It is not a choice and I certainly cannot process how a male can be romantically attracted to and fall in love with another male, and the same goes for a female- as well as seeing gay couples engage in PDA’s (Public Displays of Affection), but that’s my problem to deal with, not theirs. Having said all of this and to wrap up this article, this last part is probably the thorniest and most difficult to write but I would not be honest with myself and the reader if I did not include it- so here goes. I believe that marriage is ‘gendered’ and a judicial edict by the nation’s highest Judiciary in interpreting the Constitution cannot rewrite history, tradition, and sociocultural experience. When one thinks of marriage, it is the union of two persons (male and female) as bride and groom to become husband and wife. In a more practical sense the two become Mr. and Mrs., and as much as it is difficult for me to say this, two women and two men cannot ever have this experience; no matter how passionately or powerfully they want to. In a family structure where there are children, is having to mommies or two daddies as parents the SAME as having a mom and a dad?

This last part is even more sensitive because of the controversy surrounding gay adoption. Since this is a rather new and fairly recent social experience it will be interesting to see what social scientists and mental health experts have to say in about twenty years or so because I am not so sure that it will be the same as expert opinions deemed as harmless for the present time. The human brain doesn’t fully develop until around age twenty four and that don’t just mean intellectual faculties, but emotional and mental as well. I am not sounding the alarm about the negative influence on the physiological development of a child raised in a same-sex family or the Gay Rights Movement as a whole on American society and just because a majority approves a particular practice there is still no way to predict the future consequences.

 

Robert Randle
776 Commerce St Apt B11
Tacoma, WA 98402
July 11, 2015
robertrandle51@yahoo.com

 

Today's America is not the same one the Founding Fathers intended or would have supported

In the Friday, July 3, 2015 edition of the Tacoma Weekly, Section A, was an editorial viewpoint entitled, “Is this the form of government that the Founding Fathers envisioned”? After taking several political science classes in college, and one especially that was an in depth study of the Constitution, I think that I can answer the question in an academically competent manner. The system of governance that we experience in America today is radically different than the one envisioned by Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison, and other Continental delegates. The draft of the Declaration of Independence echo with the unforgettable, awe-inspiring, and unimpeachable words: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal. . . “There is a lot in that one line so let me try to unpack it. Did “ALL MEN” include indigenous First Nations men or those men brought from Africa to the distant shores of America with iron chains shackled around their necks, wrists, and ankles?

In reading the Constitution it seems that African slaves, or those subjected to servitude was of special concern to these great men, and for proof look at the following: Article 1, Section 2b (“Three-fifths Clause”); Article 1, Section 9a (“1808 Clause”) along with Article 5b; and Article 4, Section 2b (“Fugitive Slave Clause). The Thirteenth Amendment which freed the slaves was perhaps the most insidious, twisted, perverse and tricky piece of legislation ever passed into law. Most readers do not pay attention to the part that says, “. . .  except for [any] crime where the party shall have been duly convicted.” I have no doubt that ex-slaveholders and other White citizens found creative ways to exploit the legal weakness of this clause, and re-enslaved those who have formerly been heretofore freed. It must also be noted that many, if not most of the signees of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution were slaveholders.

The last part of the Op-Ed pens exactly the words from the Declaration of Independence [as the entire article contains], but I want to focus on the words: “A new nation that would be of the People, by the People, and for the People. . .” but just who are these people under consideration that the Framers had in mind, because it wasn’t ‘All’ people?  These gentlemen did not even include [White] women in their deliberations, and in fact they were only granted the right to vote [“women’s suffrage”] in 1920; ironically fifty years after slaves were given the right to vote after passage of the Fifteenth Amendment in 1870. So, to reiterate, the Founding fathers DID NOT conceive of an America where  someone like Barack Obama would ever be elected president of the United States.

 

Robert Randle

776 Commerce St Apt B11
Tacoma, WA 98402
July 7, 2015
robertrandle51@yahoo.com

Our buying impulses may be more biological than due to slick advertising

Josh Sanburn wrote an interesting article called “The joy of less” in the March 23, 2015 issue of TIME magazine. It was an eye-opener got me thinking about why people like to accumulate and hold onto things. Elinor Ochs, Anthropology professor at UCLA sees a relationship between feeling anxious and buying or acquiring a lot of stuff. Stephanie Preston, Psychology professor at the University of Michigan, considers the human need to accumulate things as our “Inner Squirrel.” She takes a sort of anthropological or evolutionary approach by saying that early humans gathered just enough things [nuts] to meet basic survival needs and a place to keep them secure [dry/fresh]. The development of tools was a game changer because items were no longer disposable, or had to be consumed right away, but could be taken along and reused later. Preston goes on to say human beings have a need to be validated, appreciated, acknowledged and expect to be supported by others. When this does not happen then anxiety sets in and as people feel socially rejected or undervalued, they become selfish and start to get their hands on as many things as possible; as a remedy for the emptiness or space that is not filled up in their lives. She concludes by mentioning that anxiety is associated with uncertainty, a sign that there might be a scarcity of resources and it is time to start stockpiling (“hoarding”) stuff.

Randy Frost, Psychology professor at Smith College sees it this way: “Objects have meaning about your past that you are still connected to, cherish, and don’t want to let go of.” These possessions evoke real and powerful [pleasant] memories of a certain time that has special meaning and significance. It is a way to forestall, transcend, and pretend that we are able to struggle against and prolong the inevitable- that we are finite and that we are going to end. About 1 in 6 Americans suffer from anxiety disorders, and shopping is seen as one way to alleviate or manage it. The experience has the tendency to release “dopamine” [a neurotransmitter that helps control the brain's reward and pleasure centers] into the brain, giving a sense of euphoria. It is a sensation that those who are susceptible want to relive it over and over again, like a drug habit. All is not lost however because there are some new generation consumers called disaccumualists (“minimalists”), who have gotten rid of their excess stuff and only keep and use the essential things. Thomas Gilovich, Psychology professor at Cornell University sees this change as a sort of ‘existential’ awakening [epiphany], and his research has found that it is life’s experiences, not the accumulation of things, that brings true feelings of joy and happiness. It is our fondest memories of those experiences that stick with us in the end because we get used to and/or discard things; but memories last forever.

 

Robert Randle
776 Commerce St Apt B11
Tacoma, WA 98402
July 7, 2015
robertrandle51@yahoo.com

 

A layman’s account on the cause of Global Warming

Before the reader dismisses this article as just another one of the many similar authored writings on the subject, I ask you to suspend judgment and hear me out; and try to keep an open mind. I do not claim to be an expert and this opinion is just for information purposes only [doesn’t this sound familiar??]. If after reading my presentation of some personal reflections you are still not convinced of my assertions, then I thank you for your time, and by all means hit the ‘delete’ key. Now, after my disclaimer it is time to start this journey and dive right in. I think there is a difference between Climate Change and Global Warming. As I see it, Climate Change has more to do with periodic fluctuations in temperature that the planet undergoes, or has experienced since the earliest prehistoric times when the glaciers melted. Afterwards, the process reversed when the planet got cooler and the Ice Age resumed. This dance of nature has been going on for millennia but Global Warming is something different altogether and unprecedented in the history of planet Earth.

 

What I am talking about is that today there is a gradual and constant worldwide temperature rise, even taking into account temperature inversions and fluctuations here and there over the past several centuries, and the only rational conclusion is that it is caused our activities since the Industrial Revolution at the very least. The evidence is based on taking samples of ice cores and tree rings using scientific methods to determine the temperature rate of increase as well as the average temperature now as compared to thousands of years ago. Even if a panel of distinguished scientists, climatologists, and environmentalists did not agree on this phenomenon, the cause(s) should be self-evident; which I will introduce now. The first cause is people (we, us) or to be more specific, a planetary population of over nine billion humans; not accounting for all the members of the animal kingdom. All biologic forms as well as their waste by-products contribute to the overall heat index. The average human radiates a body temperature of roughly 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit, and if you don’t think that’s warm try riding as a passenger on a crowded bus without air conditioning.

 

The second cause is the overuse of fossil fuels, namely the carbon monoxide (CO) pollution of gasoline-burning engines from automobile exhaust, but that might be an oversimplification. It would be more accurate to say that it is hydrocarbons from Petrochemical refining, fractionation, and manufacturing processes that make billions of metric tons of nearly indestructible plastic or related components that do not break down in the environment. It requires a lot of energy to manufacture these products but these products also contribute to the overall planetary heat matrix. Besides, remember Einstein’s famous equation: E=MC² (basically, energy is matter and matter is energy; energy must also have something to do with generating heat when it is expended). This presents a nice segue into the Third cause, which is that very piece of equipment, machinery, or thing (including us) consists of matter, and matter is just a form of congealed energy. I know this is getting a bit too esoteric but just hang with me a little bit longer. Energy is released when something is made and not only that but what device do you know that doesn’t get warm when you use it long enough? Every system is powered by some energy source and as such, heat is produced in the operation of it; maybe unless it is some kind of cold fusion process in a nuclear reactor, I guess.

 

A fourth cause is all this stuff that we accumulate, billions if not trillions of metric tons of heat-producing inorganic disposable waste, junk, demolished scrap material from buildings, roads, bridges, discarded metal containers, rusting and broken machinery, equipment, vehicles, and you name it. These objects overflow landfills and litter the bottom of oceans and collectively with everything else, warm the planet. This fifth and last cause is something that I learned in elementary school about the primary colors- white reflects heat and the other colors absorb heat. How many buildings have their rooftops painted in a coat of energy-efficient, heat-reflecting white primer? Even the beautiful clothes we wear with all the wonderful color combinations and patterns absorb heat. There are only two aspects to this issue- either we use or make things that reduce the amount of heat produced globally or we add to it. As a final point I find it quite amusing when politicians among the Democrats, Republicans, Tea Party, Independents, skeptical scientists, and even a few Evangelical preachers weigh in on the who is right side of the debate-but all they do is just add more hot air from all their talking. President Obama and members of Congress just don’t get it-Green Energy initiatives to support Wind, Solar, Hydroelectric, Geothermal or nuclear technologies will not work because they would have to replace all the existing old and least energy-efficient industries already in place. The Cap-n-Trade policy doesn’t work because it just allows one polluter to buy credits from another company that doesn’t pollute as much, thus avoiding the cost of upgrading to more energy-efficient systems; or the company might just pay the fine for polluting because it might be less expensive in the long run anyway. Besides all that, the ideal of zero emissions isn’t practical for the simple reason that it means no output, and that translates into no job; because that is the only way to not pollute at all is to not produce anything. So, in a nutshell, Global Warming is here to stay and unless scientists discover a new form of matter where the energy source does not emit heat when it is used to power our needs, then I am afraid we have very few or greatly limited options available to us at this point. You may hit ‘delete’ now.

 

 

Robert Randle

776 Commerce St Apt B11

Tacoma, WA 98402

July 6, 2015

robertrandle51@yahoo.com

Same-sex marriage is now legal in the United States

The nation’s highest Court issued its much anticipated ruling which made same-sex marriage legal in all fifty states. In a 5-4 split decision, Justice Anthony Kennedy sided with Justices Kagan, Breyer, Ginsberg and Sotomayor to reach this landmark decision. Justice Thomas angrily took issue with Justice Kennedy’s emphasis on the word “dignity” in writing the majority opinion. He goes on to say that slaves didn’t lose their dignity and those placed in internment camps didn’t lose their dignity because the government cannot bestow or take it away-huh? Justice Thomas’ line of reasoning is not based on any legal or constitutional basis, and it is insensitive, incoherent, irrational and utter nonsense. He misses the point entirely because when someone is deprived of a fundamental right that others enjoy, such as life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, or when their self-worth is diminished or devalued, how can it not be said that the person is not robbed of their dignity? There is a level of harm done, and as such the person has the right and the government has the obligation to make the plaintiff whole.

The verdict turned on applying the “Due Process” of the 14th Amendment, not to mention Article 4, Section 1a of the Constitution (the right of Contract). The state, in arguing against same-sex marriage could not put forth a compelling reason, at least from a constitutional standpoint, to deny same-sex couples the right to marry. The state’s contention that it was in the best interest of children to be reared in a heterosexual [traditional] family environment was not deemed a compelling enough reason to uphold the ban on same-sex marriage among some of the states. Chief Justice Roberts expressed his displeasure by uncharacteristically lambasting his colleagues on the bench by referring to them as lawyers who imposed their own personal views on marriage as a matter of Constitutional law. He continues in a judicial tirade by saying, ‘I find the majority position indefensible as a matter of law. It sounds more to me like sour grapes, a tyranny of the majority if you are on the losing side. In a somewhat taunting tone Justice Roberts told the victors, “Celebrate today’s decision-celebrate the achievement of a desired goal-celebrate the expression of a commitment to a partner-celebrate the availability of new benefits; but do not celebrate the Constitution. Justice Kennedy however, sees it differently-to him, “Petitioners seek ‘equal dignity’ in the eyes of the law and the Constitution grants them that right.”

Of course in any legal decision there are winners and losers, and some of the big winners are same-sex couples and their supporters. Additionally, according to the latest Gallup and other opinion polls, roughly 60% of Americans support same-sex unions. President Obama finally came on aboard regarding this issue over the last few years and is on the right side of history, so it seems. Now for the biggest losers, and I am not talking about weight loss. The list includes: the Tea Party and GOP, Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Bachmann, Rick Santorum, Michael Medved, Kirk Cameron, Arianna Huffington, and last but not least, Mike Huckabee. The former Arkansas Governor, Baptist preacher and GOP presidential candidate, after this crushing defeat tried to rally the Conservative, mostly White Evangelical Christian base by channeling the Founding Framers refusal to acquiesce to the imperial British monarchy-he told supporters, “We must not retreat but instead we must resist the imposition of judicial tyranny.” I bet the Red States are really seeing ‘red’ now. This ruling by the Supreme Court should not have come as a surprise because of earlier court cases like Loving v Virginia and Lawrence v Texas, which superseded Bowers v Hardwick.

Since religion seems to play a part in politics, I want to close with a little pun or parody for those who are stuck in the muck and mire of the fire and brimstone judgmental Old Time Religion of the past. Using the example of “Little Red Riding Hood”- the big, bad, evangelical wolf (preacher) says, “I will huff and I will puff (condemn) and I will blow your [presumably immoral, liberal, abominable, secular, humanist, and demonic] same-sex union house down. The theological rains came down, the fiery winds of sermons came and blew against the house, but it did not fall because it was built on a [Constitutional] rock (excerpted from Matthew 7: 24-25 . . . emphasis mine).

 

Robert Randle
776 Commerce St Apt B11
Tacoma, WA 98402
July 2, 2015
robertrandle51@yahoo.com