Joss, the voice actor best known as John Redcorn on “King of the Hill,” was fatally shot in front of his home Sunday.

Newlyweds Jonathan Joss and Tristan Kern de Gonzales held each other in their final moment together Sunday.

Joss, 59, the voice actor best known as John Redcorn on “King of the Hill,” had just been shot in the head in front of their San Antonio home.

“I didn’t want him to struggle and everything, so I decided to tell him I loved him. And despite the severity of everything, he was able to look up at me and acknowledge what I was saying, so I know he heard me,” said Kern de Gonzales, 32. “I just kept telling him: ‘It’s OK. You need to cross over. You don’t need to keep struggling. You need to go ahead and cross over easy.’”

Kern de Gonzales said Joss’ killer also had final words for the actor. He called him and his husband “jotos,” a Spanish slur for gay people.

“I’ve been called that word while I was sitting on a bench with Jonathan, eating lunch,” Kern de Gonzales said. “And I got called that holding Jonathan while he died.”

Shortly after, police arrested one of the pair’s neighbors, Sigfredo Alvarez Ceja, 56, in connection with Joss’ killing.

    • @LilB0kChoy@midwest.social
      2•18 hours ago

      Right, and who is in control of Congress right now?

      100 Senators and 435 Representatives.

      Any amendments they’ve brought up lately?

      First sentence of your article, “A Republican Representative has claimed that a proposed amendment to the Constitution to allow presidents to serve more than two terms has “a lot of support” among GOP colleagues.”

      I bet they make that claim; might even be true. Do they all? Does 2/3 of the House and 2/3 of Congress? Do 38 state legislatures support it?

      First you accuse me of somehow arguing to make constitutional amendments easier, which I haven’t. Then you provide an article where a GOP Representative has claimed something and act like all the additional hurdles of making a constitutional amendment don’t exist.

      I’m done with this argument. There is no logical or factual basis where case law precedent is better than enacting a law for explicitly protecting a woman’s right to choose. Your example of Roe literally demonstrates the point.