My Photo
Name:
Location: Argentina Neuquén Mission, Argentina

Friday, May 16, 2008

Gay Marriage IS Legal Already!

Did you know that gay marriage is acceptable by law in all fifty states?

I’m not joking. Nobody seems to realize it, but gay marriage is already legal now, and what’s more, it’s been legal for as long as anyone can remember. In fact, in any country of the world where the institution of marriage is recognized, homosexuals are allowed to marry with impunity.

I’ll bet you didn’t realize that yesterday when the California Supreme Court wielded their tyrannical power to assault the bedrock fundamentals of representative democracy.

When I heard of this decision, I was literally shaking with rage. How dare four people inflict their policy preferences on the rest of us with no regard for the will of the people. How dare they erode an ancient, fundamental institution of civilization that predates America by thousands of years to suit the political fashions of the day.

Shame on them. And shame on us if we let them get away with it.

Here’s the high-minded language of the despots who would dismantle our republic:

“Our state now recognises that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person, and responsibly to care for and raise children, does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation, and more generally that an individual's sexual orientation — like a person's race or gender — does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights. “

Thus saith four Californian pinheads in black robes.

Where to start? Who on earth is disputing that anyone, anywhere, has the “capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship?” Tell me what legal rights have been withheld from or denied to anyone?

To compare this to race or gender is preposterous. No one’s being enslaved or denied due process here. We’re not even talking “separate but equal.” Everyone, everywhere, of any race, color, creed, sexual orientation or Troy McClure-style attraction to marine life has the right to get married.

And no one has the right to radically redefine what marriage is.

Make no mistake - that’s what the Court is doing. They’re making new rights by discarding old ones. Marriage is a contract recognized by the state which, by definition, can only be entered into by one man and one woman. Homosexuals can and do get married, but many of them, for obvious reasons, choose not to. To say they have a right to change the rules to suit their preferences is ludicrous, regardless of whether or not homosexuality is entirely genetic or includes an element of choice. That would be akin to saying that short people have a right to play in the NBA.

Consider this analogy, which, like the NBA one, is flawed, but, I believe, still makes the point. I have two college degrees – a Bachelor of Fine Arts degree in Theater from the University of Southern California, and a Master of Business Administration degree from Brigham Young University. The first degree cost a lot of money and took four years to get, and it qualifies me to work in some of your finer fast food restaurants. The second degree was less expensive, took half the time, and has been instrumental in advancing my career.

But in both cases, each degree had its requirements. To get the degree, I needed to take a certain amount of classes, and while there was some flexibility as to which classes I took, I couldn’t expect to substitute a course in yoga for my required accounting credit and expect BYU to hand me one of their diplomas with an MBA on it.

Similarly, there are hordes of online sources where you can just about any degree on earth – BFA, MBA, PhD, whatever – from any number of “non-accredited universities.” These degrees cost a nominal fee – maybe fifty bucks or so – and they come with nothing but a pretty diploma. All respectable businesses and educational institutions ignore them, because they don’t begin to represent the kind of effort, skill, and commitment that comes with an MBA from a real university. Once you decide an MBA is whatever you say it is and recognize all of them equally, whether some are accounting based, yoga based, or include no course credit it all, then the MBA becomes meaningless.

Heterosexuals don’t have the right to change the rules any more than homosexuals do. I spoke to a lifelong friend a couple of days ago who just broke off a three-year, intense relationship with a girl he loved dearly but who was no longer interested him. (That’s another story entirely.)

Anyway, he runs a Facebook page, and he now lists his status as “divorced.” He explained that by saying it was his way of “honoring what we had between us.”

Well, not to belittle my friend, but what he had was not a marriage. His choice of a word associated with marriage reveals his own grudging respect for the power of the institution, but it also shows a willingness to bend the definition to suit his own purposes. He, like plenty of people who seek the companionship of folks of their own gender, had, in the words of the California pinheads, “establish[ed] a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person.” Legally, he could have that relationship recognized by the state, and he chose not to, no matter how much he wants to “honor” the past. I could call myself a Physical Therapist to “honor” the work I’m doing with my personal trainer, and it would mean about the same thing.

Many proponents of this decision repeatedly ask how this decision threatens my own individual marriage. Of course, it doesn’t – it’s not aimed at individuals. It takes aim at the institution itself. Look for polygamy now to become legal. Look for every conceivable relationship – between relatives, between animals, between people and inanimate objects – to wind up included in the definition. Suddenly, when everything is marriage, there will be no such thing as marriage.

And one of the basic building blocks of civilization will have crumbled into dust.

31 Comments:

Blogger Papa D said...

SC, I generally am one of the voices of moderate conservatism when it comes to political issues, but I am surprisingly ambivalent about this one. The following is what I posted on BCC, with some follow-up commentary. (I apologize up front for the length of this comment.)

"Fwiw, the anti-homosexuality religionists lost the *legal* argument against homosexuality the moment they made it a scientific argument by claiming that such inclinations are “unnatural”. That barn door will never close in our society. They now lose the *legal* argument all over again the minute they claim things like “every child deserves to be raised by a mother and a father” - since they are unwilling to take that statement to its natural conclusion and remove children from single, heterosexual parents.

The only argument against homosexual civil union or marriage that works on any level is the religious one - that God commanded that sex and marriage be maintained within traditional marriage recognized by the Church.

***I accept that argument fully.***

That, however, is a tenuous *legal* argument, and it is exacerbated by society’s unwillingness to enforce that basic foundation and punish heterosexual sex outside of marriage. It is undermined further by society’s allowance of common law “marriage” - which is explicitly outside of traditional marriage recognized by the Church.

Our society has lost this argument - because of how heterosexuals responded and failed to respond to heterosexual challenges to it. If we won’t battle heterosexual alternatives *within the law*, we shouldn’t battle homosexual alternatives *within the law*. If we start addressing all alternatives equally, this discussion changes dramatically for me - but the general heterosexual population will never allow that.

The central battle has been lost - and the heterosexual religionist community lost it on their own. When your foundational argument is flawed (”It’s unnatural.”), and when you refuse to enforce the follow-up arguments when they affect heterosexuals, you have no legal leg left.

The "sacredness of marriage" was destroyed years ago. Don’t blame homosexuals for our current situation; the fault lies firmly in the other camp.

Case closed, imo."

I know that's not an easy position to understand coming from a generally conservative Mormon, but, at the very core, I believe in the **legal** standard of treating all people equally within the law. Iow, ANYONE who violates a core standard should be punished equally. In that light, I can't support the violation of the sanctity of marriage by heterosexuals and not support the same violation of the sanctity of marriage by homosexuals. Both are fornication or adultery; both are condemned in scripture; both are manifestations of the natural man; both are violations of the Law of Chastity. Regulate and/or punish both; don't regulate and/or punish just one.

I am concerned DEEPLY about the weakening and breakdown of traditional marriage, and I support measures that will strengthen traditional marriage, but I don't think banning gay marriages and (for example) not banning common law heterosexual marriages strengthens traditional marriage. I believe such an action actually weakens marriage in a much more fundamental way, since it explicitly legitimizes common law, heterosexual marriage - a form of fornication condemned in our canon just as vehemently as homosexual activity.

If you want to strengthen marriage, imo, have the state issue civil union licenses to whomever it decides should have basic *social* benefits - and allow religions and churches to define "marriage" and hold it to a higher standard than the government does. Mormon marriage and Catholic marriage and other denominations' marriages would mean something then - unlike now, when marriage means absolutely no more than the price of the certificate that shows the arrangement - and is just as easily dissolved.

May 16, 2008 at 2:46 PM  
Blogger Unknown said...

mmm. Sex outside marriage is not named "marriage". I personally don't care if gay people have "Unions" but don't call it marriage. It is NOT. What is the aim of having "unions" anyways? for the legal rights? Those can already be obtained through legal chanels without calling it "marriage". You want you partner to get everything after you die? you want them to say if you get life support or not? you want them to be the benifieciary on your life ensurance? Cool. Go for it. Most of that can be done with a WILL and the other can be done by naming the benificiary on your life ensurance as your partner. Even Hereosexuals have a hard time with these things. Heck, they fight over them all the time!

The arguement is not "it's unatural" the arguement is the definition of marriage IS between a man and a women. It has been that way for CENTURY's and believe me homosexuality is NOT new. Heck, in Roman times it was openly accepted, in fact older mena dn young boys had relationships that were openly accknowledge back then and it was socially ok. But was it called "marriage"? nope. It wasn't. Why does it have to be called "marriage" to be acceptable to the gay community?

I agree with Stallion, next will be polygamy and on and on... then the word marriage will me nothing except MAYBE a relationship. That's it.

If the law is going to redefine words, they have a huge job ahead of them. How about redefining "Terrorist" too? And "Abortion"? and "Chaste"? "Ethical"? and any other controversial word that causes disagreement?

The country has more important things to do besides redo websters dictionary... how about oversee the insurance companies gouging the CRAP out of EVERYONE (not just hetero's or gay's, both). How about checking how how the lenders are STILL hosing over the housing market? I mean... come ON! Work on feeding the poor for all I care... but stop playing the definition game!

May 16, 2008 at 6:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I seriously don't understand why any dialogue of this topic is necessary.

If gay folks want to get married, why in a nation that should prize Liberty above all else, is it an issue?

So they want to call it marriage. Will calling it marriage make your penis shrivel into oblivion? Will it make your vagina vomit forth buckets of pea soup?

If not, then why would you give a shit?

Personally, I do think homosexuality is unnatural and potentially a psychological disorder.

And because of that my primary concern with the acceptance of homosexuality is that these folks might not receive the kind of help they might otherwise need. So for me it's not hatred but genuine concern for these folks.

But damnit! I live in a free country. And I WANT to live in a free country.

These folks have enough problems without everyone else piling on top of them. People, and especially government, should leave them the hell alone.

Frankly, it's nobody's god damned business what grown adults do with their own genetalia. Least of all, government's.

Don't you have to go to work Monday morning? Should'nt you be worrying about that instead of what orifice some guy is sticking their wang into?

Liberty, should always trump everything else. Period.

BAN THE BAN

May 17, 2008 at 12:02 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's amazing that people can't see how screaming for "liberty" just enslaves us further. Truth is truth, and regardless of people's interpretations it will always be truth. If we're not in line with it, we become slaves to the alternative.

May 17, 2008 at 12:48 PM  
Blogger Ikarus said...

This is a losing battle.

Eventually gay marriages are going to be allowed in all 50 states.

It's a change which is going to happen.

May 17, 2008 at 2:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

jjrakman - You are of course entitled to your opinion. But I think you have grossly mischaracterized stallion's point, and the opinion of others who think similarly.

You said:

"And because of that my primary concern with the acceptance of homosexuality is that these folks might not receive the kind of help they might otherwise need. So for me it's not hatred but genuine concern for these folks."

Are you suggesting that those who are against same-sex marriage hate homosexuals? That's preposterous.

You also said:

"Frankly, it's nobody's god damned business what grown adults do with their own genetalia. Least of all, government's."

You have really missed the point. Homosexual sex is not at issue. Nobody is debating whether to allow people to have gay sex. At issue is the definition and meaning of marriage. And you seem to have really missed the point.

ACC

May 17, 2008 at 4:31 PM  
Blogger WhiteEyebrows said...

WOW, SC. I never realized you were so staunchly in this camp.

IMHO, the only compelling argument the pro-family faction has left is the "if we allow this then we have to allow bestiality, polygamy, et al." I think this is the only argument that will get enough heterosexuals concerned enough to be anti gay marriage.

Polygamy is especially a good one to use in this argument because it's hot on everyone's minds with the FLDS abusers.

May 17, 2008 at 4:32 PM  
Blogger The Wiz said...

I see absolutely no reason to vote. Judges will do whatever they want regardless of what the voters say, so I don't even know why I bother anymore.

Stuff like this will increase voter apathy tenfold. Because seriously? They might as well not have voted.

May 17, 2008 at 9:54 PM  
Blogger The Wiz said...

I WANT to live in a free country too- one that counts my vote. I guess that battle is lost.

May 17, 2008 at 9:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thomas Jefferson once said that democracy was nothing more than 51% of the people taking away the rights of the other 49.

So our founding fathers established a legal framework to insure checks and balances against mob rule. It's called "The Constitution". It is invoked when a law is passed that someone feels is discriminatory; the provisions of that new law are held up against the standards set by The Constitution and prior high-court decisions and, if it passes those tests, the law is upheld - and if it is found lacking the law is struck down.

As then-popular laws against mixed-race marriage were struck down, as then-popular laws against barring blacks and women from voting were struck down, as then-popular laws against segregation were struck down, laws that codify discrimination and inequitable treatment will and must be struck down regardless of how popular that discrimination may be.

And don't be so naive to think that "civil union" carries the same legal weight as "marriage" does.

The argument of this being the "slippery slope" into legalized bestiality or even polygamy is ludicrous at best. If that's the best argument you can come up with, pack your bags because this show is over.

There is a huge gulf between what the state recognized as "marriage" and what tradition and religion recognize as "marriage". The state doesn't give a rat's ass about the spiritual meaning, the sanctity of the institution.

Perhaps a better use of this time and energy would be to coin a term that the state can use to recognize "marriage" regardless of the two parties involved - one that allows the various churches to have a monopoly on the word.

Half of them will still end in divorce.

May 17, 2008 at 11:13 PM  
Blogger Unknown said...

Curious. Honestly want to know.
How doesn't a "civil union" carry the same legal weight as "marriage"?

Please clearify.

and BTW I don't care what adults do behind closed door. Not a care in the world. It's when they smear it in my face and FORCE me to know that i have an issue with it. I don't drive around with a symbol on my bumper sticker that says I'm hetero. I don't bring it up. If someone asks I am happy to share that I am married and love my husband, but if not... why fling that at people? I don't get it. I know and love some gay people, but why do they have to try so hard to label themselves. I hate being labeled... as anything, I feel it limits how people view me.

Anymore everything is double faced. If I'm pro-naacp I'm openminded, but if I'm pro-celerate my caucasian heritage I'm a KK member and a bigot. Why do I have to be homophobic if I simply feel threatened by gay marriage?

May 17, 2008 at 11:33 PM  
Blogger Unknown said...

and I third the votes counting thing.

since when does one branch of government (the judicial) have the right to overide the two other branches? And if they do have that right, then there needs to be checks and balences put in there FAST. To protect the citizens from nutcase judges etc.

May 17, 2008 at 11:34 PM  
Blogger foodleking said...

Clearly, the state has placed special meaning on the word "marriage" that excludes some consenting adults from entering into a relationship of their choosing. If not, polygamy would be legal (bestiality has some serious issues with the sheep's ability to consent, though maybe an orangutan or dolphin might do for the Darwinists amongst us). Ironically, I believe many homosexuals would be first in line to marry their pets (what is it with lesbians and their cats?).

Discrimination is important, but defining marriage as a legal relationship between a man and a woman does not hold the test of being discriminatory. Many other civilizations have been excluded particular races from full participation in society and later fixed it (like we are attempting to do). I know of no other successful civilizations in history who acted similarly with homosexuality and marriage. Marriage as a traditional institution has stood the test of time, not for hundreds of years, but for millenia.

As has been commented here by others, the law should not be about popular sentiment, but about what is constitutional. So now we must change the constitution. Most likely, there will be a proposition on the ballot in November in California that will do just this. It will be harder to pass than the Defense of Marriage act from 2001, but looks good so far.

May 18, 2008 at 12:03 AM  
Blogger Ikarus said...

"Ironically, I believe many homosexuals would be first in line to marry their pets (what is it with lesbians and their cats?)."

Umm..are you really serious about that belief?

May 18, 2008 at 9:04 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To put it most simply, certain rights (survivorship, making medical decisions, decisions for children, etc.) are assumed under the "marriage" contract - you get "married" and boom, it's all there. There isn't a "civil union" law on the books anywhere that affords the same legal coverage.

Now, there are hoops that can be jumped through that approximate this, but they are time-consuming and far more expensive than filing a marriage certificate with the County Recorder. And even then, when all is said and done these documents do not have the same weight and scope as the "marriage contract" does.

I hope that clarifies things somewhat.

"Change the Constitution". In other words, codify the discrimination and make it legal. The very idea should infuriate anyone interested in preserving the freedoms we all enjoy.

And let's be honest. "Marriage" is already in trouble, and gays had nothing to do with it. It's meaning has already been diluted and made less potent - more than half of all marriages end in divorce - so you think allowing "gay marriage" will harm it further? Get real.

Wouldn't it be better for everyone if the state stopped recognizing "marriage" altogether, and instead simply recognized the "union" of two into one taxable entity, with all the rights and privileges? Then there would be no need for this unnecessarily acrimonious debate.

I am
Dawg

May 18, 2008 at 9:53 AM  
Blogger Unknown said...

thanks for explaining dawg.

May 18, 2008 at 10:47 AM  
Blogger Ikarus said...

I'm more or less in align with Dawg's comments.

Considering how frequent divorce is, I doubt allowing gay marriages is going to harm the institution.

It's more a matter of rights, benefits, and various legal committments.

This is why gays are pushing for allowing gay marriages. They obvious want to same rights and benefits as straight couples.

May 18, 2008 at 2:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To say that homosexual couples are just asking for the same rights as straight couples is flawed - big time. Homosexuals as Americans are not being denied any rights.
Every man has the right to enter into marriage.
Every woman also has the right to enter into marriage.
Homosexuals are asking for special treatment - not equal treatment. They are asking for the law to change to fit their own lifestyles.
We want the law to remain in force as is. An ammendment would do just that. It should be seen as preserving the existing law rather than banning something that is already against that existing law.
In this light it seems silly that we have to actually ammend the constitution to define this law at all, but these judges are forcing us to do just that.

Californians have already voted on this issue and have chosen to uphold the existing definition:
One man (any man of any race, religion, disability,or sexual orientation)has the RIGHT to marry one woman (any woman of any race, religion, disability or sexual orientation).

May 18, 2008 at 5:37 PM  
Blogger Anonymous_1 said...

SC wrote: "When I heard of this decision, I was literally shaking with rage."

Yes, yes, but were you morally outraged?

May 18, 2008 at 6:27 PM  
Blogger Heather O. said...

I think this thread has unequivocally established that you don't get the most comments when you discuss if YOU are gay, and YOUR politics, but that you need to combine politics AND homosexuals to get the joint jumpin'. Well done, SC.

May 18, 2008 at 7:17 PM  
Blogger foodleking said...

Dawg wrote:

And let's be honest. "Marriage" is already in trouble, and gays had nothing to do with it. It's meaning has already been diluted and made less potent - more than half of all marriages end in divorce - so you think allowing "gay marriage" will harm it further? Get real.


The same groups who pushed for "no-fault" divorce laws that have pushed the divorce rate sky-high now point to the divorce rate as justification for changing the definition of marriage. Marriage was diluted, at their insistence and to our shame. Perhaps we will finally take a stand.

May 18, 2008 at 7:42 PM  
Blogger James A. Howard said...

The question, how we want to redefine marriage, has been raised.

Like a growing, adolescent boy, experimenting with his emerging powers of will within his circle of influence to see what the effects of his hands may be and find to what advantages in life he may lay claim, our nation is turbulently straining to discover and define itself among its peers. But, who are our peers? Who is it we (meaning, the struggling, hormonally buffeted among us) are trying so hard to impress or outdo? Do we care what Europe thinks of us? The Middle East? Japan? What form has this menacing, irresistible peer pressure taken?

SC contrasts his "adolescent" decision to major in Theater with his "mature" decision to obtain an MBA. While I believe he does not regret his past, SC would no doubt confess that his earlier, impulsive move was largely peer-influenced.

We need not vilify our temptation charged peers, whatever they be. However, we need to recognize the passing, foundationless quality of this element along our journey of growth.

The identity of the 232-year-young U S of A must continue resolving upon some kind of foundation -- something quite apart from, and unaffected by, the changing winds of fashion and opinion. If we stand a chance of leaving our teen years behind and entering at last into responsible adulthood we will have done so upon some tried and tested principal of community.

I am forty years old and feel secure in my identity. But it was not always so for me. I remember well wanting to have a bold, unique identity of some kind -- wanting it so badly that I would climb the sides of 13-story buildings just for the attention. I could not say at that time with any certainty what I believed should be the foundational principal on which citizens of a free nation must build their laws. (If I was breaking them, I must not have been believing in them, naturally.)

Our nation's identity is an emotionally charged topic right now. We are feeling the eruptive pains of puberty. Perhaps we cannot say now, as I could not say then in my adolescence, what foundational principle upon which we would want to base our evolving identity. However, among those of us who are veterans of the battles of principles, we would unquestionably agree that certain concepts are expressly non-foundational, even anti-foundational, to community (e.g., glamorizing immoral relationships).

May 19, 2008 at 1:33 AM  
Blogger Ikarus said...

"To say that homosexual couples are just asking for the same rights as straight couples is flawed - big time. Homosexuals as Americans are not being denied any rights."

This isn't true. The entire discussion is about them being allowed to legally get married.

May 19, 2008 at 3:43 AM  
Blogger Anonymous_1 said...

Abrahamics are so authoritarian, and their mythology is so incredibly boring. This world needs a new mission. Giant Space Turtles, like Gamera, would be more exciting.

May 19, 2008 at 5:51 AM  
Blogger foodleking said...

Ikarus wrote:

"To say that homosexual couples are just asking for the same rights as straight couples is flawed - big time. Homosexuals as Americans are not being denied any rights."

This isn't true. The entire discussion is about them being allowed to legally get married.


Homosexuals can and do marry every day, but the law has never held that a person may enter into marriage with ANY other consenting person of their choice. It is about adding special & different rights for homosexuals that do not exist for all others. As offensive as it sounds, a woman may not marry her first cousin, take 6 husbands simultaneously, etc.

P.S. Nice to see you JAH... you're freaking me out.

May 19, 2008 at 10:08 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This blog just makes me feel so gay i could sing, while someone saws my leg off.

May 19, 2008 at 10:26 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

foodleking wrote:

The same groups who pushed for "no-fault" divorce laws that have pushed the divorce rate sky-high now point to the divorce rate as justification for changing the definition of marriage. Marriage was diluted, at their insistence and to our shame. Perhaps we will finally take a stand.


I'm not suggesting that anyone change their views of what marriage is and supposed to be. The underlying problem we're trying - and failing - to address is how the completely secular government defines what a "marriage" is.

The California Supreme Court is saying that the government needs to define "marriage" to include, basically, any two people who have willingly combined their households into one taxable entity, and not discriminate against those couples who happen to be of the same gender.

As I've expressed above, there are certain rights and privileges that come with the "marriage" contract that other committed couples/family units cannot take advantage of. The effort for them to obtain the same rights and privileges as enjoyed by other committed couples/family units is not the attempt to obtain special treatment, but equal treatment under the law.

It's not the "no-fault" proponents that pushed the divorce rate up, my friend. It's the people who never took the vows seriously in the first place who did that.

I still think the state should call it something other than "marriage". For everyone.

I am
Dawg

May 19, 2008 at 11:49 AM  
Blogger Ikarus said...

"To say that homosexual couples are just asking for the same rights as straight couples is flawed - big time. Homosexuals as Americans are not being denied any rights."

Yes they are being denied rights.

They can't marry their partner.

Unless it's an opposite sex partner.
So same sex partners are being denied the right to marry one another.

May 19, 2008 at 3:36 PM  
Blogger Elder Samuel Bennett said...

I don't have that right, either, Ikarus. That's not what marriage is or ever has been.

May 19, 2008 at 4:49 PM  
Blogger Unknown said...

Marriage is NOT a right it's a priviledge. If it were a right... all those attrociusly stupid/ugly/abrasive/whatever reason people out there who are hetero and single would be being discriminated against as well. Nobody mandates marriage. Nobody forces it. And if they try people pitch a fit (and rightfully so).

May 20, 2008 at 7:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is a question of equality. Do men and women hold equal status under the law? If so, then a person should be able to marry another person regardless of gender, because men and women hold the same legal status. A woman has just as much right to marry a woman as she has to marry a man, because both carry the same legal rights and status.

As a gay Mormon, I have had a really hard time with how the Church fights gay marriage. I understand the Church's doctrines and how they apply to other Church members, but we need to let those outside of the Church practice their own beliefs. How did we feel when our polygamous ancestors were persecuted? Just because someone has a different idea of marriage doesn't mean we should impose our idea onto them.

May 31, 2008 at 6:35 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home