Proof of Evil

 

Be warned: This contains reports indicating extreme and murderous child abuse.

Disclaimer: I’m dealing with a news report. I am not responsible for errors and omissions in that news report. I don’t claim any direct knowledge of the people or events described below. The mother’s last name is spelled two ways in the article.

I frequently post on X (Twitter) links to stories of terrible things happening to parents because they’re parents, and terrible things happening to children, often at the hands of their parents. This story warrants an entire blog post.

This article is from Will Conybeare at KTLA, and given how things have been going there, he might have been let go since he wrote it.

The Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services is being sued over the death of a 14-month-old who attorneys say was subjected to prolonged abuse at the hands of two Long Beach residents with past criminal convictions who had the infant placed in their care.

The taxpayers of LA county will be paying any judgement or settlement, along with attorneys fees.

An investigation into the case of the child, identified initially at Tilly S., began on Nov. 7, 2025, when officers with the Long Beach Police Department were dispatched to Miller Children’s Hospital after the toddler was found unresponsive and with signs of trauma. The girl, just over the age of one, was placed on life support but died from her injuries three days later.

On Nov. 25, 2025, two people — Alfredo Muñoz Jr. and Kelly Anelalani Muñoz — were arrested in connection with the infant’s death after detectives found she had suffered extensive ongoing abuse from them, and that her death was the result of that abuse. The couple was charged on Dec. 2 with one count each of murder, torture and assault on a child causing death.

At least there is a criminal case against the alleged abusers. No lawsuit against them? Well, their pockets probably aren’t that deep, unlike Joe Taxpayer.

Alfredo Muñoz Jr. is Tilly’s biological father, and Kelly Muñoz her stepmother; Tilly’s biological mother, Alexis Servin, the plaintiff in the lawsuit, relinquished custody for personal reasons, her attorney Brian Claypool said.

So Tilly’s mother had “personal reasons” to give up custody. Gee, what do you think those could be? What are the odds she wouldn’t be available because she was going to be working in the International Space Station? In my opinion, if I had to guess, the guess would be she was either too messed up to care for a child or she didn’t want to bother.

However, Alexis’ parents — Tilly’s grandparents — were “ready and willing” to care for the infant.

The people who raised Alexis?

Here come the blood boiling details.

Lawyers say that an autopsy of Tilly, who was “under the care, custody and control of the L.A. Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) at all relevant times,” revealed she endured prolonged abuse that led to injuries including acute blunt head trauma with skull fractures, multiple hemorrhages, a severe spinal cord injury and multiple skeletal fractures. Skeletal findings included healing fractures of multiple ribs, the femur and the tibia that were sustained weeks prior to Tilly’s death.

“The autopsy report confirms Tilly’s death was the result of the combination, severity, distribution, and differing ages of these injuries indicate repetitive inflicted trauma,” the complaint states, adding that Tilly’s official cause of death was found to be a catastrophic brain injury, cerebral edema, brainstem compression, and hypoxic-ischemic injury.

Is there any sane person who’d say it would be unjust to have a public lynching of the murderers?

Legal representatives for Alexis Severin, in the wake of the 14-month-old’s death — one that was described as “tragic” by L.A. County District Attorney Nathan Hochman — are now pointing the blame at DCFS, alleging the department should have known that Alfredo Muñoz Jr. and Kelly Muñoz posed “an extreme and foreseeable danger to any child placed in their care.”

That’s a fair accusation, as we’ll see. But unless Alexis is alleging Alfredo forced Tilly’s conception on her, keep in mind that Alexis was in position to know Alfredo wasn’t a good man, yet allowed him to knock her up. And again, why couldn’t she have/keep custody? Doesn’t Alexis have any blame in this?

Both Alfredo Jr., 41, and Kelly, 34, had prior felony convictions for willful cruelty to a child from a 2021 case. The former was described in the complaint as having an “extensive” criminal history dating back decades:

Alexis didn’t know any of that? Really? And it sounds like Alfredo and Kelly were together for years. How did Alexis get into the mix? Did she choose to let an evil, married man stick it in her and knock her up? He was a father already, and according to a letter the article quotes, considered unable to care for the children he already had. What a turn on! What woman can resist that???

• 1999: Muñoz was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon, a felony, and sentenced in 2000 to five years in the California Youth Authority 
• 2006: Muñoz was convicted of possessing a switchblade knife, a misdemeanor, and sentenced to 30 days in a county jail
• 2009: Muñoz was charged with three misdemeanors (use/being under the influence of a controlled substance, resisting arrest and providing false information to an officer) and two infractions (operating a bicycle in the dark on a highway and not having reflectors on the bicycle pedals) — all were dropped except the resisting arrest charge, for which he was sentenced to a year of summary probation
• 2010: Muñoz was convicted of felony possession of a controlled substance and sentenced to three years of formal probation; he violated his parole in 2012 and was sent to a county jail for 16 months
• 2012: Muñoz was convicted in federal court of being a felon in possession of a firearm and sentenced to 41 months in federal prison followed by three years of supervised release. He was also required to go to outpatient substance abuse treatment
• April 2016: Muñoz was convicted of carrying a dirk or dagger, a felony, and sentenced to three years of probation. He violated the terms of his probation in 2017, for which he spent two years in state prison
• July 2016: Muñoz had a misdemeanor petty theft dismissed in furtherance of justice
• 2021: Muñoz was charged with two felony counts of willful cruelty to a child resulting in possible injury or death and felony possession of a firearm by a narcotic addict. He was only convicted of one count of willful cruelty to a child resulting in possible injury or death and sentenced to four years in state prison

Was Alfredo let out early? Or did “time served” get him out in time to knock up Alexis? Or was he allowed conjugal visits? Anything’s possible in California. Notice his light sentence for a serious crime after being a repeat criminal.

Kelly Muñoz has three prior convictions, the complaint states:

• 2012: Muñoz was convicted of possessing drug paraphernalia and sentenced to 44 days in jail
• 2013: Muñoz was convicted of methamphetamine possession and sentenced to three years of summary probation, five days of community service and a $150 fine
• 2021: Muñoz was charged on the same day as Alfredo Muñoz Jr. with two counts of willful cruelty to a child resulting in possible injury or death; she was convicted on one count and the other count was dismissed. She was sentenced to 90 days in jail and five years of formal probation

Delightful people.

The complaint states that Tilly was placed with the Muñozes not long after Alfredo Jr. had been released from his four-year sentence for willful cruelty to a child.

Again, if that’s true, when and how did he knock up Alexis? Or did he knock her up the moment he got out and nine months later, “not long,” a newborn was given up by her mother? 

“Tilly Servin’s death was caused by the failures of DCFS and the County of Los Angeles,” the complaint adds.

The “dad” and his wife had something to do with it. But again, they don’t have deep pockets.

Were the grandparents seriously shady, or did DCFS simply have such a preference for biological parent bonds that they preferred giving the girl to a convicted child abuser?

Well, there you have it. Hopefully other inmates will do their thing and carry out prison justice.

Maybe someone from DCFS will be fired. They’re probably severely overworked and constrained. But it sure looks like taxpayers are going to be, once again, soaked. I know there are millions of people in that county, but it seems like there’s always a kid being tortured to death and authorities knew about it before they are murdered.

And to bring this back to what I blog about most: How many women have allowed that guy to knock them up? How many women have polished his knob? He’s apparently what turns some women on.

Ponder that.

Stop Telling People to Have Kids

Concerned with dropping "fertility rates", there are people who encourage others to have (more) children. This is one of millions of examples of why that's a terrible idea.

Hannah Fry reported in the Left Angeles Times...

The city of Napa and Napa County will pay $5 million to settle a lawsuit filed by the father and grandmother of a 3-year-old girl who was tortured and killed in 2014.

The City of Napa and the Count of Napa. That means the taxpayers of Napa. That's because they were supposed to somehow only have government officials and employees who would have prevented this.

Kayleigh Slusher died in a Napa apartment in January 2014 after being neglected and abused by her mother, Sarah Krueger, and her mother’s boyfriend, Ryan Warner. Both were convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison, according to court records.

They should have gotten the death penalty.

After Kayleigh’s death, the girl’s body was stuffed in a duffel bag and stored in the freezer for three days before she was placed in her bed, where police ultimately found her. The girl’s cause of death was multiple blunt-force injuries to her head, torso and extremities. She had suffered a broken rib and damage to her small intestine and was covered in bruises before she died, authorities said at the time.

Don't you tell me that lethal injection is "cruel and unusual". The people who wrote and adopted that phrase into our Constitution would have done far worse to her murderers.

Kayleigh’s father, Jason Slusher — who was serving a prison sentence when his daughter was killed — and her grandmother, Robin Slusher, filed a lawsuit against the city and county in 2015 alleging that despite obvious signs of abuse and neglect, police and child welfare officials did not intervene or remove Kayleigh from her mother’s home.

Why was her father in prison? Was he wrongly convicted? Or was Sarah Krueger just that good at picking men? Whichever it was, Jason made a terrible mistake in knocking up Sarah. And his mother... how did she raise that guy? All that being said, I do recognize that there are legal principles that apply here that say they could be rotten people (not saying they are, but they COULD be) and they still have standing to get big bucks because of what happened to their daughter/granddaughter.

The lawsuit said that in the three weeks before Kayleigh died, Napa police and child services had been called to the girl’s home five times regarding possible abuse and drug use.

When officers visited the home, they “would have seen that she was covered in bruises and in excruciating pain from a broken rib and the intestinal infection that was slowly killing her,” but they did nothing, according to a statement from Slusher’s attorneys.

Is anything being done to the people who responded to these calls? Demotions? Loss of jobs? Criminal prosecutions? Stuff like that has been pursued in SoCal after a highly publicized torture-murder of a boy. Or is Joe Taxpayer the only person who's paying?

I have no idea if the responding personnel were simply callous or jaded or secretly hate little girls, or if they made genuine mistakes, or if they were sincere but completely incompetent. I wasn't there. I wasn't in their heads. It certainly looks like they failed to take action when they clearly should have. It's a terrible position to be in. If you make mistakes, kids die or you take kids out of a loving home, at least for a while.

But let's not forget who put that little girl in that position in the first place. Her own parents. When parents can't or won't protect their children instead of torturing and murdering them, how do we expect a bureaucracy to do it effectively on a consistent basis? Answer: It can't. Which means horror stories are inevitable.

Stop telling people to have children. They really shouldn't, unless they're prepared and willing to be good parents.

If I Was Abdul Arian's Family, I'd Be Ashamed

This is back in the news, so I'm bumping it up...

I'm so sick of the families of people CAUGHT ON CAMERA apparently committing crimes subsequently suing TAXPAYERS (via suing local government) after their after family member is shot and killed by cops.

I don't think there should be any right to be protected from death while you are committing a crime.

Have some semblance of shame and rebuff the ambulance chasers when they come calling. I know you want to blame everyone else and get a payout, but the blame appears to fall squarely on your departed loved one, and maybe a little with YOU. That may sound harsh, but so is endangering ME and then suing ME. If anything, YOU should be charged for the cost of the whole pursuit.

This guy, if authorities are to be believed, called 9-1-1 while he was being followed by the police and driving erratically, and told the dispatcher he HAD A GUN, and now his family is suing after he does all of that and acts like he is going to shoot officer, and the police defended themselves and innocent bystanders.

Warning... although the camera is far away, you see the guy's last moments of life...



The family has filed a claim for something like $120,000,000.00. Really? Have they no shame???

Did She Prefer a Hostage?

A guy decided he'd rather not get married to a certain woman rather than end up being divorced from her. She responds by suing, giving us a clearer picture of why he called off the wedding in the first place. Susanna Kim has the ABC News story.

In a suburb of Chicago, fury has overtaken a jilted bride who is suing her former fiancé for the wedding costs. Dominique Buttitta, dumped four days before the wedding was to take place, is seeking damages of $95,942 from Vito Salerno to cover wedding expenses and the cost of the lawsuit.

That could be an excellent deal for him in the long run. Actually getting married and then divorced could have easily been much more expensive.

Buttitta and Salerno began dating in March 2007, were engaged in December 2007 and the wedding was set for October 2 of this year in Barrington, Illinois.

There's something wrong when the dating period is nine months long but the engagement is almost three years.

The suit's itemized list of expenses included over $30,000 for the banquet hall, $11,000 on lighting and flowers, $10,000 for an orchestra, $7,550 for a photographer, $5,000 for a wedding dress and accessories, and $1,700 for wedding favors. The expenses include other non-refundable purchases, including a bridesmaid luncheon, bridal shower and a deposit for a wedding planner.

And whose idea were most of these expenses? $30,000 for the banquet hall? I'm sure they could have found a great place for a lot less. The facility should already have lighting, and flowers wither in days. Who needs an orchestra? Photographers overcharge for weddings. $5,000 for a dress that will be worn once? I know for a fact that you can get beautiful dresses for under $1,000.

The suit also claims that one month before the wedding date, the groom attended a bachelor party at an adult entertainment business called the Pink Monkey. He allegedly engaged in lewd acts, including lap dances with strippers, of which the bride was unaware.

If that is actionable, then there are a lot of wives who are in big trouble!

Some states, including Illinois and Georgia, have "breach of promise" to marry laws.

I actually think such laws can be a good thing, but only as part of a comprehensive set of laws that would punish people for breaking their marital vows, which include much more than promising not to have sex with other people. Breach of promise usually means "I only had sex with you because you promised me marriage." Is she claiming that?

This is not the first time a heartbroken bride sued her former groom. In July 2008, a jury in Georgia ordered Wayne Gibbs to pay RoseMary Shell $150,000 for breaking off their engagement three days before their wedding.

So, guys, the earlier you DTB (dump the bride), the better. However, it isn't too late until the marriage license is signed and filed. You can even go through a ceremony and still not have the marriage legally validated.

What's the alternative, really? A guy should go ahead and get married to as to not ruin her special day, then get divorced later? Shouldn't she have to demonstrate that he knew many months prior that he wasn't going to marry her, but that he deliberately kept the wedding planning going in order to upset her?

I think the wedding budget and expenses should be part of a comprehensive pre-nuptial agreement that is finalized and in effect before a wedding date is set. Terms should include who will pay what under what circumstances.

Sour Grapes or Legit Gripe?

There's supposedly a heterosexual male out there (hmmm, maybe he's bi?) who wants to claim the Lady Gaga character as his own. By that I mean he's claiming he helped create the character, even coming up with the name.

Now, I happen to think that the woman playing Lady Gaga can put on a show. Sometimes I dig heavily theatrical musical performers, going back to Alice Cooper, who is still doing a great job. It isn't always about the music – it is about the whole image, the whole experience. As for the music – I generally don't like most of today’s Top 40/pop.

What I can't stand about the character is the name. Lady Gaga. Yuck. And yet this guy is claiming to have come up with it. Fine. Uhm, hey, you over there. I'm going to name you Lord KooKoo. Now if you make it big, you owe me. Well, it is a little more than that, as Christie D'Zurilla reported at the Los Angeles Times website.

Rob Fusari, a songwriter and music producer who co-wrote some of Lady Gaga's first records -- and was her boyfriend before breaking up with her in 2007 -- is suing the pop star for more than $30 million, saying she squeezed him out of her career once success hit.

Says the lawsuit: "All business is personal. When those personal relationships evolve into romantic entanglements, any corresponding business relationship usually follows the same trajectory so that when one crashes, they all burn. That is what happened here."

Fusari's suit says he came up with the "Lady Gaga" name and helped her get her first record deal...

You know, when you mix dating and business, this kind of thing can happen. This is one good reason why...

1. Someone working a job they want to keep should never date coworkers.
2. Someone with high career goals should reach them or be well on the way to reaching them before locking in to a relationship.
3. Especially with creative and entrepreneurial endeavors, there should be a clear distinction made between a dating relationship and working one, and written agreements about any work involving your boyfriend or girlfriend.
4. Pre-nups that protect intellectual property in so far as a court will honor the pre-nup.

Fusari, who co-wrote songs including "Paparazzi" and "Beautiful, Dirty, Rich," says he had a contract for 20% of royalties, 15% of merchandising revenue and more, the Washington Post reports. The suit says a friend steered the singer to his New Jersey studio in March 2006 when she was still going by Stefani Germanotta.

He could end up getting a lot of money. Whether or not he's telling the truth, a settlement could be made for the sake of avoiding risk.

To become a pop music superstar these days, especially as a woman, it seems to me that you have to be very young and either 1) make it far on American Idol; 2) be physically attractive in the Hollywood sense (and, usually, show it off), or; 3) be a character who hides behind costumes, wigs, theater makeup, etc. From what I can tell, the woman playing Lady Gaga doesn't quite have the face for option 2. That is not to say she's unattractive – just that she doesn't have a model's face. There are plenty of women I find very attractive who don't have a model's face. So option 3 has served her well... a character name, wild costumes, crazy choreography and antics, masks... the whole works.

What is Wrong With This Picture?

It's another bright and sunny day in Santa Ana, California. Denisse Salazar of the Orange County Register has this article of interest.

Susie Young Kim, 37, was shot and killed just after 1 a.m. April 10 at 17th Street and Grand Avenue near a Food 4 Less supermarket in Santa Ana after a 30-minute [high speed] pursuit through Buena Park, Anaheim, Fullerton and Santa Ana.

That saved us the expense of having her go through the court and correctional systems, right? Well, keep reading.

Kim's 13-month-old daughter, who was in a car seat in the back seat of the black Toyota sedan she was driving, was unharmed. She was taken to Orangewood Children's Home and then placed under the care of her grandparents and father.

Thank God. How evil of her to put her child in that situation.

But guess what? Susie Young Kim's parents have filed a claim against the city!

The claim was filed June 24 by attorney Dale K. Galipo on behalf of Kim's parents, Yung Kim and Nancy Kim, and on behalf of her daughter, Angelica Kim Contreras, and the estate of Susie Young Kim.

That's what we call nerve. Audacity.

The claim asks for $20 million in damages, including for funeral expenses, legal costs, severe emotional distress, survival and punitive damages.

And what about Susie Young Kim's responsibility in all of this?

The claim alleges that the Santa Ana Police Department's officers involved in the incident "used excessive deadly force, which resulted in the death of Susie Young Kim."

Why have the officers never used excessive force against me? Oh, that's right. Because I don't put myself in that position. I don't drive like a maniac and refuse to pull over.

It goes on to say that the officers involved also "knowingly endangered the passenger child by using unnecessary deadly force and negligently handling the vehicle pursuit."

Susie Young Kim endangered the child, if the newspaper has it right.

Galipo said that based on his independent investigation to date, the officer fired from the side and there were no bullet holes to the front of the windshield.

Which might have been what spared the child.

After the incident, Buena Park police Sgt. Bill Kohanek said officers saw a car seat in the back seat and broadcast that over police radio, but he also said it's not uncommon for officers to miss transmissions.

I've driven many times with a car seat that didn't have a child in it. Especially at 1am.

Santa Ana has 45 days to respond to the claim. After that, a lawsuit can be filed. Galipo said they intend to file a lawsuit unless the city wants to reach a settlement.

Ka-ching!!! Blood money.

Galipo said it's unclear why Kim did not immediately stop when a Buena Park police officer tried to pull her over.

Oh, of course it is. I'm sure she had a perfectly good reason not to stop. Everyone does that with a 13-month-old in the car. At 1am.

I'm so sick of people who commit crimes (or the people who raised them) getting seven figure paydays at taxpayer expense.

Hey Yung Kim and Nancy Kim – how about a formal public apology for the actions of your daughter? You know, some day, that child is going to find out what her mother did. Poor thing... that child is the real victim in all of this, and her mother is mostly to blame, if the newspaper's report has it right.

California Marriage Amendment on Trial

Will a court that is supposed to be bound by the state constitution place themselves above the constitution? Or will they affirm the California Marriage Amendment, voted in as Propostion 8? The Playful Walrus explains.

Tips at Starbucks

Recently, a California court ruled that Starbucks “baristas” in California were due money because they had to share tips with shift supervisors, who got a portion of the tips in the store tip jar.

I don’t get this.

Shift supervisors are the first level of management, true, but they are working right there on the front lines with the baristas. If I was a shift supervisor at a Starbucks in California, I would henceforth refuse to do anything but “manage”. Down a barista and the baristas who showed up are overwhelmed? Too bad! Why should a shift supervisor have to do work that baristas are tipped for, but be denied the tips?

Noelle Kooler of Beverly Hills wrote in to the Los Angeles Times, making my point:

As a former barista and shift supervisor at Starbucks, I am angered by the court's decision. Yes, I am a part of the class-action group that would receive additional tip money. However, the principles behind this lawsuit are outrageous. I've worked in three stores, and in every one, the shift supervisor does almost double the work of a barista. They help customers, make drinks, train new baristas and ensure that the store functions when the managers are away. They earn only a few dollars an hour more than a barista. When I worked at Starbucks, I was a struggling college student and needed those tips. To rule that baristas are more deserving is ludicrous -- tips should be shared evenly.

But I have to wonder why courts are involved in this anyway. I mean really – if some baristas were not happy with the tip situation, why didn’t they just quit and work elsewhere? That’s what people should do when they don’t like a company’s policies or procedures. Nobody is holding a gun to your head to keep you there.

Now that I’ve got that out of the way, why are people tipping other people for doing their jobs? I tip for personalized service. Putting coffee into a cup is not personalized service. Carrying my bags a distance is. Waiting on me is. But don’t worry, you baristas – you won’t be making coffee for me and then not getting a tip from me - I don’t frequent Starbucks because it is incredibly overpriced and the whole thing is pretentious.

Hmmm, maybe I should put a tip jar on my desk at the office. Or maybe on my office door, right under my name.

Stop Whining About EHarmony.com

A clinical psychologist spends decades counseling both-sex couples and learning why relationships fail and why they last, and what makes happy marriages happy. He figures out how to determine if a man and woman are compatible with each other in ways that will likely result in a happy, lasting relationship. He wants to increase marital happiness, reduce the divorce rate, and thereby help individuals, their children, their extended families, and thereby society as a whole.

He sees a business opportunity, and he takes what he has learned and modern day technology and launches EHarmony.com. Good for him, right?

It is a voluntary service that people have to log on to and pay to use. Nobody is obligated to use it, and there are many alternative online and offline services.

Yet this hasn’t stopped people from complaining and suing. The complaints and lawsuits are usually about what eHarmony.com isn’t, which is funny because it doesn’t claim to be those things in the first place.

It is a site dedicated to matching people based on their likelihood of entering into and maintaining happy, lasting marriages. It isn’t a “dating” site.

To determine if people are ready for such a relationship and with whom they’d be compatible, eHarmony has people fill answer an extensive list of questions to form and deliver a personality profile. The length and depth of the questioning is set up to smoke out people aren’t really serious or patient enough, may not know themselves well enough, may be misrepresenting themselves (intentionally or not), aren’t mature enough, or have some other emotional condition or character trait that renders them unlikely to be a good marriage partner. EHarmony does not take money from those people, because the people running the service do not think they will be able to successfully help those people find a lasting relationship. Such applicants are told that the site would be unlikely to find them partner. EHarmony also “rejects” people who are currently married, are “too young”, or have been divorced enough times to make another divorce likely.

There are people who are paranoid enough to believe that eHarmony “rejected” them because of their beliefs about religion or their weight, but there are at least thousands of eHarmony.com customers who can demonstrate that not to be true.

I find it curious when people balk at the results of the personality profile, get angry when eHarmony won’t take their money, or complain that they are consistently matched with losers. All of these things are a result of what someone has indicated about themselves. They only have themselves to blame.

Perhaps the most bitter attack against eHarmony.com is that it currently will only match people with someone from the other sex. A lawsuit was filed in California by a woman who was seeking to be matched with a woman. It is true that there are many, many services that already do this. However, none of them are based on the research and experience of Dr. Neil Clark Warren. Apparently, activists such as the one who filed this lawsuit really admire Dr. Warren’s matching abilities, which is interesting considering they usually are quick to bash his convictions as an evangelical Christian and his earlier ties to Focus on the Family. It seems these activists want it both ways – they want to benefit from Warren’s research while condemning the principles behind it.

Thanks to the Federal civil rights laws, businesses do not have the freedom to refuse to exchange goods/services/money with another party simply based on factors like race. You could have started the business with your own personal savings, built it from the ground up, etc., but you don’t have the freedom to choose to only serve certain races and exclude others. (And yes, this supposedly means that if you are “white” and a “black” business refuses to serve you because you are white, you can sue them.) In California, “sexual orientation” is one of those categories where it is illegal to discriminate. You can’t refuse to serve someone because he or she is a homosexual.

That is the law. I’d argue that everyone should have the freedom to hire, fire, and do business or not with whomever they want for whatever reason. If a woman only wants to work with women, she should be allowed to hire only women. If she only wants women as customers, she should be allowed to make that restriction. If she doesn’t want my money because I’m male, then she loses out when I take my money elsewhere. But, we must deal with the laws as they are, not as we want them to be.

I’d argue that eHarmony is not refusing service to anyone based on their sexual orientation. Any woman, regardless of sexual orientation, can take the personality profile and be matched with men – provided she isn’t excluded for the things I mentioned above, like being divorced too many times. If you’re a woman and you don’t want to be matched with a man, then eHarmony is not for you. I wouldn’t go to the Olive Garden and demand that they serve me Mexican food, or sell me footballs. You may not want to be matched with a man, but why is that eHarmony.com's responsibility? It is a voluntary subscription for a non-essential service.

Dr. Warren has pointed out that his decades of research has been with both-sex couples, and so he doesn’t have the experience to match up men with men and women with women. The critics have balked at this, howling and shrieking at his assertion that there could be any difference in the dynamic within the sexes and the dynamic between the sexes. I find this puzzling, because almost none of these critics are bisexual, so clearly they know there is a difference. Men and women are different, and that makes the dynamic between them different than it is between two men and two women. If this wasn’t true, then gay people could easily choose to be straight.

The lesbian can’t have it both ways. Either men and women are different and she is attracted to women and not to men, or there is no difference and therefore she should be attracted to both, and thereby eHarmony matching her with a man should not be a problem for her. But there is a difference, and eHarmony.com’s matching criteria is based on the dynamic between a man and a woman, and thus wouldn’t work it matching a man with a man or a woman with a woman.

Some people assert that the only difference is in body parts, but this doesn’t past muster, either. Is a lesbian really a lesbian only because she prefers vaginas to penises? Such an assertion is ridiculously simplistic, especially considering the use of phallic toys by some lesbians.

Rather than cursing the darkness, why not light a candle? Counselors and psychologists who specialize in counseling same-sex couples should build up, collect, and analyze research about such couples who have happily lasted, and figure out what has made their relationship work. Then, they can take that research, and start their own service. Maybe eHarmony.com would be willing to license its technologies to such a business or launch the service itself. Or is the lawsuit really just about trying to tear down a business because they’re selling chicken when you’re in the mood for tuna?

EHarmony.com has been successful enough that other matchmaking and dating sites compare and contrast themselves to eHarmony. Match.com’s Chemistry.com has gone so far as to appeal to the “rejects” from eHarmony. Great. Go to Chemistry.com if want someone who is already married, or has been divorced a few times already, or is too young or immature to get married, or has some other challenge to having a happy marriage with you. Sounds appealing, doesn’t it?

Finally, there are the people who simply don’t like the eHarmony.com ads with their happy couples and Dr. Warren. I don’t know - maybe they are lonely and bitter, or maybe they’d rather see a teen pitchman with a bunch of piercings, tats, and a rap sheet. People are entitled to their own tastes. The problem comes when they assert that everyone else has to cater to them and think like them and have the same exact experiences as them.

EHarmony.com is for people who want to find someone to marry - and in almost all of the world, that means someone of the opposite sex. There’s no guarantee you are ready for marriage, or that there’s someone out there who meets your needs/standards. Get over it. EHarmony.com has worked for a lot of people. If it doesn’t work for you, move on and stop wasting your time and energy with whining and consipiracy theories.

Oh, and if that lawsuit against eHarmony.com is succesful, they I'll sue any OB/GYN who refuses to examine my testicles.