LIBERALLY LOATHING: Eight more letters about Indiana!


Part 3—Assuming the worst about Them:
Last Tuesday, David Brooks wrote a column about Indiana’s newly-passed “Religious Freedom Restoration Act.”

Two days later, the New York Times published eight letters about his column. All eight letters challenged some part of the column. All eight echoed the Times editorial line, which had been stated in this editorial on that same Tuesday morning.

We thought those letters provided intriguing examples of contemporary “liberal” instincts. But first, let’s summarize the basic points in Brooks’ column, with most of which we agree.

As he started, Brooks referred to “a growing consensus that straight, gay and lesbian people deserve full equality with each other. We are to be judged by how we love, not by whom we love.

“If denying gays and lesbians their full civil rights and dignity is not wrong, then nothing is wrong,” Brooks said as he continued his description of this growing consensus. “Gays and lesbians should not only be permitted to marry and live as they want, but be honored for doing so.”

Brooks seemed to agree with that “growing consensus.” A bit later, he seemed to applaud the fact that “the evangelical movement is evolving. Many young evangelicals understand that their faith should not be defined by this issue,” by which he meant same-sex marriage.

Does Brooks support same-sex marriage? It seems that he actually does. He doesn’t seem to have written about the topic much. But in a colloquy with Gail Collins in December 2012, he said this:

“My guess is that the courts will gradually allow gay marriage and gradually forbid affirmative action, at least based strictly on race. Of course I want both those things to happen, so perhaps I'm allowing the wish to be father to the thought.”

We’re going to rule that David Brooks is part of that “growing consensus.” Needless to say, that doesn’t mean that he isn’t a bigot to boot!

Here’s the problem! In that same column last week, Brooks also spoke in general support of “religious tolerance.” He suggested that an ascendant gay rights movement could afford to be respectful toward those whose religious views may reject the concept of same-sex marriage.

(As he noted, it generally has been.)

Does that make Brooks a bigot? To us the modern liberals, almost everything does! In this passage, Brooks made a claim which may cause some modern “liberals” to unsheathe our tribe’s favorite bombs:
BROOKS (3/31/15): On the other hand, this was a nation founded on religious tolerance. The ways of the Lord are mysterious and are understood differently by different traditions. At their best, Americans have always believed that people should have the widest possible latitude to exercise their faith as they see fit or not exercise any faith. While there are many bigots, there are also many wise and deeply humane people whose most deeply held religious beliefs contain heterosexual definitions of marriage. These people are worthy of tolerance, respect and gentle persuasion.
Say what? There are “many wise and deeply humane people whose most deeply held religious beliefs contain heterosexual definitions of marriage?” Can David Brooks say that?

For ourselves, we wouldn’t sign on to that view. We’d be slow to say that there are “many wise and deeply humane people” on the present-day scene at all!

Like Anne Frank, we think most people are good and decent. But we’re slow to assert the vast moral greatness we humans are all too strongly inclined to confer on ourselves.

That said, we agree with a view Brooks later stated. Many people have been raised in religious traditions which don’t accept same-sex marriage!

Naming names, we’d start with Pope Francis, and work our way down from there. Until the last year or so, this list would have included Hillary Clinton. Also a fellow named Obama, to whom we liberals extend a pass because we’ve heard he was lying when he kept stating that view.

Whatever! But if we had to list the potential bigots, we’d start with well-known people. Many modern pseudo-liberals are inclined to a different approach.

They seek out the least among us and start raining their B-bombs on them. They find the “slack-jawed yokels” and “hillbillies” and bomb their pizza joints.

If you don’t support same-sex marriage, some in our tribe are inclined to say that this proves you’re a “bigot.” Especially if you’re from the South!

Can you be a decent person without supporting same-sex marriage? We’re pretty much going to say that you pretty much probably can.

Can you be a decent person while dropping your bombs on the slack-jawed yokels who inhabit your mind? For us, that’s a tougher call.

All last week, the slack-jawed yokels of our own liberal world marauded about in pursuit of “pizza-gate,” the name the geniuses at Salon bestowed on this latest fight.

At Salon, you could see comments from our own yokels. Last Thursday, those eight letters about the David Brooks column provided examples of modern thinking from the top of the liberal deck.

We thought those letters were instructive. In some instances, we thought they helped display the limits of our modern liberal imagination. In the case of the letters from the rabbi and the minister, we thought they showed that we may perhaps have a Dimmesdale or two within our own self-impressed tribe.

The eight letters are here. We’ll assume that they were written by good decent people, though they may perhaps show the small imperfections which may exist in our tribe.

On their face, all eight letters were responses to Brooks. We’d have to say that they often carved out rather narrow complaints.

In our view, the most fair-minded writer was a woman from Indiana. We admire her decency, though we’ll note that she lodges a fairly narrow complaint:
LETTERS TO THE NEW YORK TIMES (4/2/15): As a liberal who tries to analyze issues with a mind open to conservative viewpoints, I often find myself agreeing with David Brooks, especially when he sounds pretty liberal, and sometimes even when he does not. Today, though, he lost me with this observation:

“While there are many bigots, there are also many wise and deeply humane people whose most deeply held religious beliefs contain heterosexual definitions of marriage. These people are worthy of tolerance, respect and gentle persuasion.”

How can anyone who is deeply humane define marriage in a way that excludes so many humans? If you are deeply humane, you should be able to fully embrace a belief system that includes heterosexual definitions of marriage while also welcoming those participating in same-sex marriages into your businesses and circle of friends.

In the end, I agree with Mr. Brooks that the people he writes about are worthy of tolerance, respect and gentle persuasion. Just not protection to discriminate under an archaic law.
“How can anyone who is deeply humane define marriage in a way that excludes so many humans?” We’re not sure how to answer that question, which someone should take to the pope!

We’ll only note that the nation’s leading Democratic pols were in that camp just a year ago. So are large numbers of everyday American liberals and Dems, even now.

This writer dropped no major bombs in her letter. On this basis, she stood out from the crowd. Other writers described the “hate” they seem to see all around them. They also sounded historical calls of alarm, as in this passage from a writer in Princeton:
LETTER TO THE NEW YORK TIMES: David Brooks is urging L.G.B.T. Americans to be polite, know their place and patiently wait for acceptance by those whose religious beliefs would condemn them to second-class status. Are we really going back to the lunch-counter days of 1963 Mississippi?
Were there “lunch-counter days” in Mississippi? We don’t much think so, but the point was clear, in this and other letters. If a florist doesn’t want to service a same-sex wedding, we’re back in Mississippi!

It’s 1963 again! We’re back at those lunch counters!

There were quite a few such suggestions. A second reference to the lunch counters came in this letter from an actor in Princeton:
LETTER TO THE NEW YORK TIMES: David Brooks seems to give not only religious organizations a pass on discrimination but also businesses. This goes beyond wedding photographers and bakeries for gay marriages.

What is the difference between denying an L.G.B.T. person a seat at a lunch counter and denying a black person?
As a letter had said two days before, Indiana is Selma!

In fairness, Brooks didn’t really express a view as to what particular conduct should be permitted on grounds of religious tolerance. As far as we know, no one has expressed a desire to deny gays the right to sit at lunch counters, or to eat in restaurants generally.

These letters in the New York Times didn’t deride any “slack-jawed yokels” or “hillbillies.” That is the language one finds at Salon. Such uncouth language isn’t likely to make its way into the Times.

That said, these letters often seemed to assume that people who oppose same-sex marriage must be motivated by hate. Four of the letters evoked the civil rights fights of the 1960s, the ultimate standard of hate-filled bigotry in modern American history.

Is it obvious that this is what’s at issue here? Is it obvious that this kind of framing is decent and fair? On some occasions, are we possibly just a tiny bit “hate-filled” over here in our own liberal tribe? Are we determined to assume the worst about everyone who isn’t narrowly inside our tribe?

We were struck by the confidence of the writer who declared, “I understand those who created this legislation.” Soon, he was saying this:
LETTER TO THE NEW YORK TIMES: ...Make no mistake about it, there are people who would prefer that all gay people be dead. There are people who want their way of life to be the only way of living, for all people.

I have seen many changes over my 60 years. What I am seeing today, in regard to Indiana and now Arkansas, is reminiscent of the hate that existed in the 1960s, when African-Americans began to say “enough” and demanded the equality they deserved. So it is with gays, lesbians and others who are denied their rightful place in society.
This writer was certainly fervent. Does he know that the large majority of African-Americans don’t support same-sex marriage at this time? Does that necessarily have to mean that they’re filled with “the hate that existed in the 1960s?” Do they automatically have the “hateful attitudes” referenced earlier in this letter?

For our money, the real Dimmesdales in the crowd were the rabbi and the minister. Selecting a rather narrow objection, the rabbi told us this:
LETTER TO THE NEW YORK TIMES: David Brooks argues that we should be deeply polite to those who use the excuse of their religious freedoms to refuse service to gays and lesbians. He equates this “deep politeness” to the courtesy extended by a man to an Orthodox Jewish woman who will not shake his hand. But this is a false equivalency.

The Orthodox woman will not shake the hand of a man not her husband because of her own spirituality, her own belief in the need to maintain her modesty. There is no animus directed against the man. The bigoted merchant who denies service to a gay person is expressing hatred of the other and is showing no spiritual humility of his own. The equivalency is false.
It’s clear that this particular rabbi has no plan to be “deeply polite!” He starts by assuming that those with religious objections in this area are merely hiding behind an “excuse.” He ends by declaring such people “bigoted” and saying they’re showing their “hatred.”

Such people show no “spiritual humility,” the rabbi declared. Look who’s talking, one analyst quickly replied.

Up in Rhode Island, a Baptist minister told us this:
LETTER TO THE NEW YORK TIMES: We live in an America where our diversity is in constant dialogue with our fundamental belief in equality. In our heart of hearts, who among us doesn’t believe that this Indiana law isn’t about the struggle of some evangelical Christians to accept a new element of modernity in their cultural environment?

Some may feel distress about L.G.B.T. equality. But reacting with rejection and negation are not elements of a healing solution. Tolerance requires respect, not agreement.

Evangelical Christians can reach into the spiritual well of their souls and grasp the qualities of humility, kindness and generosity to guide them to a polite, if not compassionate, response to their neighbors.
We don’t disagree with the minister’s view of what those other parties could do. That said, in heavily Catholic Rhode Island, he focused on “evangelical Christians!” He let us Catholics slide!

The New York Times had now published eleven letters on the new Indiana law. All eleven had agreed with the Times editorial posture.

They didn’t use terms like “rednecks” and yokels,” but they did seem to say Indiana is Selma. They were quick to see hatred in The Others, who seemed to be white, evangelical, Southern.

For ourselves, we could almost imagine we saw a tiny bit of the hate in our own self-assured tribe.

In fairness to Brooks, he never really said what should be permitted in deference to “religious tolerance.” He did suggest that it may not be helpful to dump big fines on Christian florists who don’t want to take part in what they may see as a religious event.

Beyond that, he made a larger suggestion. As a general matter, we think this makes sense:
BROOKS: Certain basic truths are inalienable. Discrimination is always wrong. In cases of actual bigotry, the hammer comes down. But as neighbors in a pluralistic society we try to turn philosophic clashes (about right and wrong) into neighborly problems in which different people are given space to have different lanes to lead lives. In cases where people with different values disagree, we seek a creative accommodation.

In the Jewish community, conservative Jews are generally polite toward Orthodox Jews who wouldn’t use their cutlery. Men are generally polite to Orthodox women who would prefer not to shake their hands. In the larger community, this respectful politeness works best.

The movement to champion gay rights is now in a position where it can afford to offer this respect, at a point where steady pressure works better than compulsion.
Wherever this leads in the present instance, we tend to agree with those general views. But within our modern liberal tribe, a contrary impulse exists:

We seem to have a very strong impulse to think the worst of The Others. We love to call The Others “bigots.” We seem inclined to use dog-whistles to target white Southerners. Everyone else gets a pass!

Our favorite letter-writer joined the minister in suggesting what The Others could do. We agree with what they said.

That said, none of the writers followed Brooks in suggesting that We The Liberals could imaginably “reach into the spiritual well of our souls and grasp the qualities of humility, kindness and generosity to guide ourselves to a polite, if not compassionate, response to our neighbors” too!

We seem good at giving moral advice to Them, more slow when it comes to Us.

The truth is, we liberals sometimes love to hate. Our liberal loathing has been active for decades. Quite often, it leads to bad outcomes.

Tomorrow: O’Hehir finds the hate


  1. Warning to casual readers of this blog: These comments are unmoderated. They are infested by one or more trolls who routinely attack the blog author in a variety of ways, rarely substantive. Such attacks are not an indicator of the level of interest of other readers, the validity of the content posted nor of the esteem in which the blog author is held by others.

    1. Warning to casual commenters in this blog: Feel free to comment about hillbillies, bible thumpers, snake handlers and other bigots in this combox. This highly esteemed blogger lets his own readers slide like a Catholic gets off the hook elsewhere. He is too busy reading other comboxes looking for examples to fill his own posts to concern himself with the haters infesting his own.

    2. Feel free to chastise whoever you want. Maybe you'll drive away a few trolls in the process. People like Digby don't allow comments at all. At least Somerby believes in participatory democracy. Speaking of that, where is deadrat?

  2. The problem, as I see it, is that sometimes religious values conflict with democratic values. When this occurs, I believe that in a democracy, democratic values should rule. This just means that some people with religious values want to overrule democratic values. When this happens many people react strongly to what they believe is some people trying to impose their religious views on them. That's why the reaction is so strong.

    1. Obama was against gay marriage until he needed to get re-elected. Does that mean he lacked democratic values throughout his first term?

    2. I don't think Obama's former position was to oppose gay marriage per se, but that the issue was just not one he wanted to advance or promote at that particular time.

    3. Well, I got from the ministers letter that not even evangelical Christians teach evangelical bakers that they are forbidden to bake gay wedding cakes.

      So how can it be a matter of "sincerely held religious belief" if your religion won't kick you out for doing it?

    4. 2;15 PM,
      More than that, baking gay wedding cakes (like homosexuality) isn't even a sin.

    5. FYI, "us Catholics" teach that homosexuality is a "disorder" not a sin.

      And even that is evolving.

    6. The Bill of Rights addresses what should happen when the religious beliefs and personal speech and expression of a few is disapproved of by others including overwhelming majorities.

    7. Only women may obtain abortions, but it is not violating one's civil rights on the basis of gender for a Catholic baker to refuse to create a "congratulations on your abortion" cake.

    8. Obama was against gay marriage in 2008 too.

    9. Yes, and there is such a high demand for abortion cakes.

    10. Demand is irrelevant to the question of whether a civil rights violation is committed.

  3. "That said, in heavily Catholic Rhode Island, he focused on “evangelical Christians!” He let us Catholics slide!"

    Yes, how odd of a Baptist minister to speak of evangelicals, and let Catholics "slide."

    1. Home state loyalty over denominational courtesy!

    2. Perhaps he felt more qualified to comment on what evangelical Christians teach and believe than what Catholics teach and believe,

  4. Here's the thing. Yes, there are many people who feel that gays should have no rights whatsoever. For that matter there are still people who have deeply held religious beliefs that inter racial marriage is wrong. They are just as wrong, and frankly just as bigoted as the ones who feel due to their deeply held religious beliefs that gays shouldn't be married. If these laws stand then the very next thing these people will want to do is deny gays public benefits based on that infringing upon their religious beliefs. You can make book on it.

    1. Gambling is against my religion.

    2. I'll make book that Somerby can't stretch this same series of letters into yet a third post about them.

      I'll give two to one odds to anyone who says he can.

    3. Since those who oppose gay marriage believe marriage exists to strengthen family, defined as parents and the children they produce, interracial marriage is not comparable since children may be produced.

    4. "Since those who oppose gay marriage believe marriage exists to strengthen family, defined as parents and the children they produce,..."

      Facts not in evidence.

  5. OK, Bob

    As a black woman, I'm ready to call African Americans who can't abide same sex marriage, bigots. They are. They're people trapped by fear and anger and their deluded religious traditions.

    You seem to view the world through your mid-90s lenses. That's got to stop if you're going to be a productive voice in the future,

  6. I am anti-marriage. Too many people get married, and too often it is not in the best interest of the state. The only marriage should be of the compulsory variety and it should be sentenced to evidential free parents of living children.

  7. It's like the old Ronald Reagan dilemma about him being (or not being) a racist.
    Brooks isn't necessarily a bigot, just because he supports the enablement of bigotry.

    1. There was a moment in the Equality Rides when one member stood up and said his vision of history was 50 years in the future, he would not negotiate with the universities. He was determined to get arrested. The other Riders dissented and continued their plan to talk to the students without forcing the hands of the administration. So you don't have to go that far back to see someone enabling bigotry while pretending to fight for it.

  8. Are Brooks' recommendations directed towards the Republican political and media establishment which encourages and exploits racial and religious bigotry and hatred? Though the anti-gays mostly claim to be followers of Christ evidently it is the liberal side which is supposed to turn the other cheek. Republicans have been very successful in motivating their non-plutocratic base to get out and vote for Plutocrat-friendly politicians by stirring up their hatred - hatred of blacks, foreigners, gays and those who have abortions (the Bible does not mention abortion in any significant way, but it is an issue which allows Republicans to characterize their opponents as murderers and worthy of hatred). Maybe it's not very Christian of liberals to respond with condescension and hate campaigns and other techniques, but it might be necessary to win elections.

  9. Goddamn phonecams!!

    1. Bob will get to that when the right-wing talking points are released and he'll know what to say about those awful liberals making things up.

    2. You must be so happy that a bad cop has confirmed your world view. I've been hearing liberals claim that every shooting would look like this if there were video of it. So yes, ridiculous things are being said.

    3. Body cams for police officers is something all can agree on. In my city they are used and there have been about a dozen officers in the last year who have not been forced to face charges or other consequences over claims of excessive force because they have been cleared by the body cam video as soon as the bogus accusation is made. Likewise, in cases where excessive force does occur, the video footage can support the claim.

      It will benefit many more police officers than it will those they are confronting with force, which is why so many in law enforcement support it.

    4. Even police need personal privacy, in the bathroom for example. If they turn the cam off then, they can turn it off whenever they want, which makes them ineffective.Further, those watching video disagree as much as eyewitnesses about what they are seeing. It is not a panacea and it is expensive, both to purchase and to watch.

    5. "Further, those watching video disagree as much as eyewitnesses about what they are seeing."

      Which is why, for example, in Ferguson Witness 102 was the best witness. What he saw from his vantage point 200 years away was so much better than those a few feet from the SUV. It was in line with everything else that supported the officer's version.

    6. "I've been hearing liberals claim that every shooting would look like this if there were video of it. So yes, ridiculous things are being said."

      As opposed to the things said by the police department before they were aware of the video.

      As usual, it takes a spoof newspaper to get the truth out there:,38397/

    7. Man, Bob and his Zimmerman and Wilson Defense Team are really going to have to work overtime to tell the sheep not to trust their lyin' eyes.

    8. Yes, clearly every shooting is the same, just as every traffic stop is the same -- except for some result in shootings and others don't.

    9. Of course not all shootings are the same, but the Somerby's Zimmerman and Wilson Defense Team will have to come up with a new story for this one.

      The usual story of scaredy-cat had to shoot the unarmed Super Thug just ain't gonna fly this time.

    10. Hollerin' before you're hurt @11:43. Nobody is defending this cop. Those with an IQ over 50 understand sometimes people murder people, and sometimes they shoot and kill people in self defense. Others like you think all shootings are murders except when a black shoots a white. Then it's just desserts because slavery.

  10. "“How can anyone who is deeply humane define marriage in a way that excludes so many humans?” We’re not sure how to answer that question, which someone should take to the pope"

    No one need base his belief that gay marriage is bad for society on any religious tradition.

    A non-religious person may regard gay marriage as frivolous and invalid based on the belief that marriage is only reasonably included in secular law because it is important to obligate heterosexual parents to their children and each other toward preservation of the nuclear family.

    Cultures in which marriage is not based in religion (Japan) but in social order do not entertain the question of gay marriage as a serious one.

    1. And Pope Francis seemed to answer that question with his famous "Who am I to judge?"

    2. "A non-religious person may regard gay marriage as frivolous and invalid based on the belief that marriage is only reasonably included in secular law because it is important to obligate heterosexual parents to their children and each other toward preservation of the nuclear family."

      Of course, given that you describe a non-religious person with "beliefs" about secular laws then surely that person would support marriage only for parents and would also include gay parents.

      And given that this person judges things as "reasonable', he would have to believe secular marriage for non parents, regardless of sexual orientation is bad for society.

    3. Deciding which heterosexual couples will not produce children would be unwieldy for the state. Gay couples do not produce children or a nuclear family so the social ordering objectives including obligating heterosexuals to the children they produce does not apply.

    4. 10:26 obviously thinks a gay male's sperm is incapable of fertilizing an egg and that a lesbian's fertilized egg is incapable of gestation in the womb.

      10:26 thinks it would be unwieldy for the "state" to only issue wedding licenses and marriage certificates to couples who have produced a child.

      No wonder 10:26 wrote or agrees with the comment @ 3:14.

    5. Gays are incapable of reproducing together, hence gay marriage is completely unnecessary for any society. If you are defending the practice of gays intentionally creating children that would be intentionally deprived of at least one of their natural parents, that goes to show how far gone some on the left are.

  11. It's actually much easier to reconcile gay marriage with Catholicism than it is with secular law which is concerned with social order, not romantic love.

  12. Though I'm sympathetic to Bob here, the problem with the argument for extending empathy and tolerance toward those with strongly held beliefs against gay marriage is that analogies to racial discrimination are easy to make. Would the young, idealistic Bob Somerby have felt similarly about extending empathy and tolerance towards white southerners in the 60s who may have been honorable and decent people in all respects apart from their strongly held beliefs that blacks and whites were meant (perhaps by "God") to be segregated? Gay rights supporters, with some justification, can all-too-easily rebut Bob's and Brook's arguments by pointing out that no one would dream of making a similar plea for tolerance of sincerely and strongly held racial beliefs.

    1. Extending tolerance doesn't mean letting them pass regressive legislation. It means cool it with the death threats against pizza parlors.


  13. Yay!! you cannot believe what this spell caster Dr Brave just did for me!!! Was this all a magic?? "This is totally a Easter miracle for me lol" My mouth are short of words. “I got a divorce from my husband when I was six months pregnant with my second child. We had only been married for a short time and had another child who was 1 year old. We had been arguing and quarreling nonstop since the day our first child was conceived, no love nor trust from him anymore so he divorced. And all these whiles, I have been trying all different means to get him back, I also tried some different spell casters from other countries, but none of them could bring Richard back to me. It was only Dr Brave who guaranteed me an urgent 48 hours spell casting, and he assure me that my husband will be with me before Easter day. I am writing to offer my thanks and deep gratitude to you for keeping your promises, and for using your gifted and great powers to bring him back today 2nd of April 2015.. I was thrilled to know that you are specialized in reuniting Lovers. I never thought, in my whole life, that I would be writing to thank someone for casting a love spell on my marriage, but that day has arrived! I have never been happier in my life, and I feel like all of my dreams has turned into reality now. Thank you, Dr Brave , for helping me through the worst times of my life, for being such a great spell caster, and for giving me a love spell that has brought me so much joy. If you doubt his ability, trust me. You should take a chance. It pays off in ways you could never even imagine, Contact him through his website: or his Email: . thank you so much sir (Mary Owen from UK)

  14. Some polling on the subject:

  15. Story short; Doctor casted the peaceful love spell on me, my husband and his family to reunite us within 7days. He said that the spell will serve as a protection to us and we will live as a happy family for the first time. Well; I was afraid because I don’t know what will be the outcome but I kept my hope and faith strong and also prayed hard for this. His spell finally worked at the date he prophesied. My husband and his family including his Mom located me, kneeling and confessing for the evil done to us and the family even when we missed our baby. I cried and accepted their apology; I knew that there didn’t do it on purpose. We are all happy as a family today and we all called and thank Dr. Wakina for the total freedom he gave to us. I regretted why I wasted time contacting local spiritual doctors when my Husband left. Thank you Dr. Wakina for making me to testify like others and I will keep spreading this great news for ages. Here is Dr. Wakina’s Email:


  16. Am here to testify what this great spell caster done for me. i never believe in spell casting, until when i was was tempted to try it. i and my husband have been having a lot of problem living together, he will always not make me happy because he have fallen in love with another lady outside our relationship, i tried my best to make sure that my husband leave this woman but the more i talk to him the more he makes me fell sad, so my marriage is now leading to divorce because he no longer gives me attention. so with all this pain and agony, i decided to contact this spell caster to see if things can work out between me and my husband again. this spell caster who was a woman told me that my husband is really under a great spell that he have been charm by some magic, so she told me that she was going to make all things normal back. she did the spell on my husband and after 5 days my husband changed completely he even apologize with the way he treated me that he was not him self, i really thank this woman her name is Dr Aluta she have bring back my husband back to me i want you all to contact her who are having any problem related to marriage issue and relationship problem she will solve it for you. her email is she is a woman and she is great. wish you good time. contact email on

  17. I know is really hard to stay alone without your lover been around you, I was in the same situation for 6 months till I find a solution, we both fall in love with each other and we got married but after 1 year of our marriage everything was changing after he got a new job in a new city, we where still talking on phone when he move to where he now working after spending just 2 months there, everything changed he stop calling me and any time i call him a lady will pick his call i was wondering what is happening till he called me that he was getting a divorce i was surprise to hear that from him i thought it was a joke till it happened then I realize I can't stay without him so i began to look for a solution then i came across Dr. EKPEN of EKPEN TEMPLE on the internet who helped me to bring my lover back. i will drop his email address in case you are passing through the same situation so you can contact him on ((((( or call him on +2347050270218.


  18. How to solve relationship and married problem !!

    I can say am the happiest woman on earth because of what Dr Frank Ojo has done in my life for restoring happiness and love back to my family. My name is Helene Wilson. I'm happily married to a lovely and caring husband with two kids. A very big problem occurred in my family seven months ago,between me and my husband .so terrible that he took the case to court for a divorce.he said that he never wanted to stay with me again,and that he didn't love me anymore.So he packed out of the house and made me and my children passed through severe pain. I tried all my possible means to get him back,after much begging,but all to no avail.and he confirmed it that he has made his decision,and he never wanted to see me again. So on one evening,as i was coming back from work,i met an old friend of mine who asked of my husband .So i explained every thing to him,so he told me that the only way i can get my husband back,is to visit a spell caster,because it has really worked for him too.So i never believed in spell,but i had no other choice,than to follow his advice. Then he gave me the email address of the spell caster whom he visited.{}. So the next morning,i sent a mail to the address he gave to me,and the spell caster assured me that i will get my husband back the next day.What an amazing statement!! I never believed,so he spoke with me,and told me everything that i need to do. Then the next morning, So surprisingly, my husband who didn't call me for the past 9 months,gave me a call to inform me that he was coming back.So Amazing!! So that was how he came back that same day,with lots of love and joy,and he apologized for his mistake,and for the pain he caused me and my children. Then from that day,our relationship was now stronger than how it were before,by the help of a spell caster. So, If you have any problem contact him, I give you 100% guarantee that he will help you, Thanks to Dr Frank Ojo for bringing back my husband ,and brought great joy to my family once again, SO HERE HIS EMAIL ADDRESS { } WEBSITE ADDRESS :, Thanks you Dr Frank Ojo, i Helene will always be testifying about your good work.

  19. My life became devastated when my husband sent me packing, after 8 years that we have been together. I was lost and helpless after trying so many ways to make my husband take me back. One day at work, i was absent minded not knowing that my boss was calling me, so he sat and asked me what its was all about i told him and he smiled and said that it was not a problem. I never understand what he meant by it wasn't a problem getting my husband back, he said he used a spell to get his wife back when she left him for another man and now they are together till date and at first i was shocked hearing such thing from my boss. He gave me an email address of the great spell caster who helped him get his wife back, i never believed this would work but i had no choice that to get in contact with the spell caster which i did, and he requested for my information and that of my husband to enable him cast the spell and i sent him the details, but after two days, my mom called me that my husband came pleading that he wants me back, i never believed it because it was just like a dream and i had to rush down to my mothers place and to my greatest surprise, my husband was kneeling before me pleading for forgiveness that he wants me and the kid back home, then i gave Happy a call regarding sudden change of my husband and he made it clear to me that my husband will love me till the end of the world, that he will never leave my sight. Now me and my husband is back together again and has started doing pleasant things he hasn't done before, he makes me happy and do what he is suppose to do as a man without nagging. Please if you need help of any kind, kindly contact Happy for help and you can reach him via email:


  20. Manifest Spell is truly remarkable. I had a phone consultation that surpassed all of my expectations. I have been to other spiritualists in the past and NONE were able to tell me all that Dr. Manifest did in just one reading. Having never met him, I was shocked with the precision of his details. He obviously knew things that others could have never known, particularly given that this was over the phone.
    His ability is unmatched, and he gained my trust in just one encounter. Add to all this, he is very easy to communicate with – very patient and understanding. I would definitely recommend him. is AMAZING!!!


  21. Hello i am Lisa,I am out here to spreed this good news to the entire world on how i got my ex lover back.I was going crazy when my lover left me for another girl last month,But when i meet a friend that introduce me to Dr Grant the great messenger to the gods that he serve,I narrated my problem to Dr Grant about how my ex love left me and also how i needed to get a job in a very big company.He only said to me that i have come to the right place where i will be getting my heart desires without any side effect.He told me what i needed to do,After it was been done,In the next 2 days,My lover called me on the phone and he was saying sorry for leaving me before now and also in the next one week after my lover called me to be pleading for forgiveness,I was called for job interview in my desired company where i wanted to work as the managing director..I am so happy and overwhelmed that i have to tell this to the entire world to contact.Dr Grant at the following email address and get all your problem solve..No problem is too big for him to solve..Contact him direct on his email address: and get your problems solve like me..