Prop 8 Overturned
Great news. Laws against gay marriage are a violation of the Constitution, ruled Judge Vaughn R. Walker. Maura Dolan writes at the LA Times:
U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn R. Walker said Proposition 8, passed by voters in November 2008, violated the federal constitutional rights of gays and lesbians to marry the partners of their choice.. His ruling is expected to be appealed to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and then up to the U.S. Supreme Court....Vaughn added: "Plaintiffs seek to have the state recognize their committed relationships, and plaintiffs' relationships are consistent with the core of the history, tradition and practice of marriage in the United States."
Ultimately, the judge concluded that Proposition 8 "fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional."]
Walker, an appointee of President George H.W. Bush, heard 16 witnesses summoned by opponents of Proposition 8 and two called by proponents during a 2½-week trial in January.
Does this judge say on what basis California has a constitutional obligation to provide marriages to anyone?
brian at August 4, 2010 2:56 PM
1) So how come all the laws "liberals" pass aren't a violation of the Constitution (Medicare, gun control, labor union exemption from the rule of law etc)? Silly me, it's one rule for socialists and another for everyone else.
2) I'm dubious about the legality of an argument that a referendum can't change the constitution. It's useful, when the proposals are bad, but I can't see how it's legal. Suppose the constitution was bad (for example, when slavery was legal)?
3) Does this mean that most African-American votes don't count in California, except when they're voting for (the correct) Democrat politicians? The answer would seem to be "Yes, they only count when they do as they're told by white elites." I'm so pleased that this would be neither racist nor patronising.
4) I must have missed the article in the Constitution that said: "the people shall not pass laws against gay marriage." My bad.
5) It's a wonder that an earlier Democrat policy: electroshock treatment for gays to "cure" them, wasn't unconstitutional. Of the two, I'd have thought the latter was the more serious violation, but I do not presume to know better.
Antoine Clarke at August 4, 2010 3:37 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/08/04/prop_8_overturn.html#comment-1739629">comment from Antoine ClarkeAntoine, let's stick to the topic: Do you think it's Constitutional to deny gays the rights to marry?
I'm a defender of the 2nd amendment along with a herd of other rights. Those are dealt with in other blog items here.
PS If gay are denied this right (and in turn, their children, if any, are denied the protections straight parents are afforded), should they pay only half or 2/3 of the taxes of the rest of us?
Amy Alkon at August 4, 2010 4:00 PM
Amy -
Marriage is not a right. Argument Fail #1.
Married couples actually pay more taxes, so that's argument fail #2.
Extending marriage to gays by judicial fiat invites the next group clamoring for recognition of their special quirk to attempt the same.
brian at August 4, 2010 4:44 PM
I used to think gay marriage was the ground zero mosque, an in-your-face triumph. Now I think the actual topic is SS survivor benefits.
A whole big lot of people (ready to shriek "biiiiigot!" if anybody doubts their word) are shortly going to testify that they've been married-in-effect for 40 years and should get survivor benefits just as if they'd been married-in-law. You heard it here first.
Likely the early cohort will be mostly truthful. The final ratio should be similar to the number of black farmers in the original Pigford settlement to those in the final Pigford settlement. Free money, on your say-so, always a popular product.
The state has a compelling interest in the existence of workable arrangements to renew its citizenry. MF marriage is workable. Seemingly so is MM and FF, modulo some changes in DNA provenance.
I'm far less worried by MM or FF than I am by MFF*. That's also workable. I just don't like the societies that result. I don't want to live in one. I most surely don't want my sons daughters and grandchildren to have to live in one. I think we're a step closer.
--
phunctor
phunctor at August 4, 2010 4:51 PM
Whether I agree with gay marriage or not, legally, this is a really troublesome decision.
In fact, the manner in which this was decided, the precedence this sets (subject matter COMPLETELY aside) as well as the emotive type testimony from BOTH sides that was allowed into the courtroom to decide this...was complete joke of our legal process. This was all about "feelings".
The first time this was on the ballot I voted in favor of gay marriage - a few years back. It went down. Then Newsome and a whole bunch of other ass-wipes thought they would do whatever they wanted any way (regardless of my vote initially -this was NOT OKAY) - sorry, doesn't work that way. This was a states rights issue, state voters said no and it was completely spat upon. THIS SHOULD BE TROUBLING TO ANY FREEDOM LOVING AMERICAN.
Second time this was on the ballot for the ban, I voted for the ban - why? Because the voters decisions should have been upheld (regardless of my initial vote being different) and for the small percentage of people, it wasn't worth it to me to over ride the voters choice on this matter. We are treading in murky territory with this folks.
From a legislative perspective, from a Constitutional perspective and from a legal perspective, this has been an absolute circus from the start.
Exceedingly disappointing.
Just wait, I mean it - just wait until our judges, legislators and politicians start over-riding the will of the voters in the future - things you DON'T agree with. See what happens then. You know what, I don't want to hear anyone bitch about it that is celebrating this court case today. The subject matter isn't shameful to me - this whole entire process was.
Extremely shortsighted.
Feebie at August 4, 2010 5:04 PM
I read somewhere that Hamilton and Jefferson got together during his presidency and decided that half of the federal judges were trying to usurp the power of the legislative and executive branches of government, so they eliminated like half of the judicial districts thus eliminating the judges. When the judges complained to their counterparts they were ignored, knowing they could be eliminated also. Somewhere along our constitutional path, we have allowed judges to overturn legislation for any reason they see fit, they have indeed subverted democracy and the other two branches of government. (see arizona)
ron at August 4, 2010 5:34 PM
As a law school graduate, but not currently a practicing attorney, I am in agreement with much that has been stated above. In constitutional law, I have never seen a "right to marry" per se, and if there is a right to marry read in as a penumbra (like the right to privacy)then tell me where you draw the line between man-man, or woman-woman and two men-one woman, or two (or more) women and one man? This will open up a whole can or worms. This sort of issue is what ends up making bad law, and the various permutations will be endlessly litigated until the whole thing comes crashing down. What probably needs to go is any kind of government sanctioning of marriage to begin with and the tax code and Social security system,should neither favor marriage or dis favor it. Everyone should be treated as a single tax payer and issues such as dependency of children, the elderly and disabled should be treated as separate issues. Isabel
Isabel1130 at August 4, 2010 6:00 PM
Democracy is so passe. All hail the rule of the cross-dressing lawyers!
Was the ruling based on the 14th Amendment, by any chance?
mpetrie98 at August 4, 2010 6:36 PM
Several things come to mind:
Used to be in this country, states were considered laboratories of democracy. As long as they didn't run afoul of the U.S. constitution and amendments thereto, the people of a state could vote to do just about anything. Those who didn't like something could move somewhere else.
Just where does a federal court get off acting on a state constitutional amendment approved by that state's voters? Used to be they didn't. Used to be, the state court system alone had jurisdiction over a matter within a single state. Now, apparently everything that you, I, anyone else, or any state does is subject to federal judicial review.
Since most federal judges, even many of those appointed by conservatives, are demonstrably anti-freedom in their rulings, we can expect much more and worse abridgement of state and individual sovereignty in the months and years ahead. If you want to know who the real Big Brother is, look no further than the federal court system.
I've never understood why the State is in the marriage business at all. The concept of marriage, even the word itself, carries such emotional connotations, since the concept was a religious one long before this country existed.
Why not just leave marriages to churches, or any private organization for that matter? Why not adopt a system of civil unions (referred to as such), which would be a standard contract between two parties, listing some basic rights and responsibilities that parties would have during its duration. Two individuals could go to the courthouse to register a civil union at any time, then go at any time to dissolve it. The whole thing would be governed by contract law.
This would be the extent of State involvement in human relationships. If two people of any stripe wanted to call their bond a marriage, they could go to a church or other organization and get it done, in addition to their civil contract.
There -- problem solved. Whenever some group complained about not being allowed to marry, government could merely reply that it has nothing to do with marriage, only civil unions.
Wouldn't this lower the temperature of the debate, or am I missing something?
cpabroker at August 4, 2010 7:01 PM
Marriage is really just a privilege just like driving. It is up to society to decide what to sanction and what to prohibit and who can have that privilege based on the current norms. Interracial marriages, for example, were prohibited in many places until the civil rights movement overturned those laws. Who knows, a hundred years from now the norms of American society may be different enough from today to allow polygamy. As far as I'm concerned, gays and lesbians should be able to marry each other, and their marriages are none of my business anymore than the marriages of straight couples are any of my business.
Tony at August 4, 2010 7:05 PM
@Tony -
Here's the rub - interracial marriages weren't explicitly illegal in the US until after the Civil War.
Anti-miscegenation laws were of a piece with segregation and all the other artifacts of the Jim Crow era. They were an anomaly.
By way of comparison, homosexual marriage has never been legal. None of the state forms (until recently) acknowledged anything but one man and one woman in a marriage. No religious organization ever recognized homosexual unions either.
So the comparison of homosexual marriage to inter-racial marriage is inapt at best.
brian at August 4, 2010 9:08 PM
Cat-like typing detected above.
Interesting content free thread. So many people responding to their own prior arguments, seemingly without addressing the basis for the judge's decision: if you're going to offer marriage, it needs to be offered to every couple, equally, and there is no constitutional right to favor one arrangement of sexes in this contract over another set in marriage.
Always fun to watch people piss away due process and equal protection.
jerry at August 4, 2010 10:19 PM
The state is in marriage because it didn't used to have dick to do with emotions.
Marriages were arranged for business or diplomatic purposes, they were for paternity certainty and inheritance purposes, the family was essentially a machine to produce taxpayers, good citizens, and by extension, a sort of retirement since in your remaining years your children would be the ones caring for you. The idea that emotions were some how relevant would have seemed pretty ludicrous, it is sanctified in law because it is in fact a contract which bound families together, not just a man and a woman.
Of course today we choose our own mates, and we are not expected to remain together for life, and life is a whole lot longer now than it used to be.
However, even with that said, the government still has a stake in marriage since it is the best means to ensure that new taxpaying citizens are produced. Of course we've cut fathers out a lot now, big brother is now daddy and daddy is now an ATM. I can't fathom any benefit to endorsing marital unions between same sexes. Its going to enrich lawyers in a whole new class of divorce cases. But not much else.
When has the equal protection clause EVER extended to homosexual marital unions? EVER? No. Never. Ergo it was obviously never intended to do so. Ergo the judge is essentially making new law to suit his agenda.
Robert at August 5, 2010 12:14 AM
I think jerry's got it right.
I sometimes have a libertarian bent - however, I'm curious as to whether any of the libertarians here are married. Would you be willing to get a divorce and forgo the 1,000+ rights (at least at the federal level) and the numerous state benefits as well to prove your point. Then you can hire a lawyer and spend thousand of dollars on your relationship contract, your estate planning, etc. Don't forget, if you're on your "partner's" health insurance - kiss it goodbye - or, if you manage to keep it, expect to pay taxes on the value of it (it's considered income). Don't expect any social security survivor benefits either.
To address some specific questions:
(i) Brian, marriage is a right - as created by the Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia (the miscegenation case). And, as jerry pointed out, if a state is going to get involved in the marriage business, then it needs to offer it on a non-discriminatory basis.
Could you point out the facts that married couples pay more in taxes? According to this article, the marriage penalty is largely a myth: http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/CollegeAndFamily/LoveAndMoney/TheMythOfTheMarriagePenalty.aspx
What marginal groups do you expect to be clamoring for marriage rights next? The couple thousand of polygamists in this country? If they ask for state recognition, then they can expect the state to start delving into their relationships (such as young teenage girls being promised to adult men without the girls' consents). If you see where I'm going, I don't think it's going to happen.
(ii) Feebie, I agree that the trial was a bit of a circus and certainly included emotional testimony. I read the case today and found it extremely interesting that the anti-gay marriage side only really provided emotional testimony. The judge had no choice but to disregard the testimony of the only 2 expert witnesses that side presented because they weren't based on fact. They could not point to any study that showed that non-biological children (or turkey baster babies) suffered from being raised by their adoptive parents (whether gay or straight). They could not point to any studies that showed that children raised by gay parents turned out worse than children raised by their straight counterparts. They could not point to any study that showed straight marriage suffered in any jurisdiction after gay marriage was permitted. Their testimony was solely emotional. The pro-marriage expert witnesses were scientific researchers who were able to point to studies and some actually conducted the studies themselves - the emotional side came into play with the gay plaintiffs themselves when they were called to testify (as anyone would expect it to be).
factsarefacts at August 5, 2010 12:15 AM
If we want to make it legal fine, but lets do it the RIGHT way, not by reading things into the law that were somehow missed in the last 400 some years of American law.
The way this was done, ANY form of marriage is OK. To include Muslims deciding to take multiple wives.
Robert at August 5, 2010 12:17 AM
So how come all the laws "liberals" pass aren't a violation of the Constitution (Medicare, gun control, labor union exemption from the rule of law etc)? Silly me, it's one rule for socialists and another for everyone else.
In other words, "Boo hoo, liberals get to be douchebags, why can't conservatives?"
MonicaP at August 5, 2010 6:28 AM
Now when some pet lover wants to marry their cat or dog is that going to be okay?
It doesn't say they can't in the constitution so it must be okay.
I'm really not being facetious. It will happen.
Then some guy will want to marry his gun and some woman will want to marry her wedding gown because she never got married and this is as close as she could get.
David M. at August 5, 2010 6:33 AM
Then some guy will want to marry his gun and some woman will want to marry her wedding gown because she never got married and this is as close as she could get.
Well, we've already started this ball rolling by allowing men and women to get married. Now everyone wants to do it!
MonicaP at August 5, 2010 6:44 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/08/04/prop_8_overturn.html#comment-1739850">comment from David M.Now when some pet lover wants to marry their cat or dog is that going to be okay?
Oh, how dumb. We allow two consenting adults to get married, and get certain rights granted them by the states because of it. Any two consenting adults should be allowed to get married and avail themselves of these state rights. Religion is what keeps people from wanting to allow gay marriage, and we are supposed to be a secular state, and it's time we started acting like it.
Amy Alkon at August 5, 2010 6:50 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/08/04/prop_8_overturn.html#comment-1739852">comment from MonicaPSilly me, it's one rule for socialists and another for everyone else. In other words, "Boo hoo, liberals get to be douchebags, why can't conservatives?"
Well said, MonicaP.
Amy Alkon at August 5, 2010 6:52 AM
This has less to do with the morality of gay marriage and more to do with legality of it. My company has recently begun offering health insurance benefits to the significant others of its gay employees. This irritates me to no end because I'm not offered the same kind of opportunity ... I can't shack up with a woman and then claim her on my health insurance. IMHO, gays should have to suffer through the same legal process that I do to get these kinds of benefits.
I don't disagree with Isabel1130 in that each person should be treated as an individual from a tax perspective. I believe in a flat tax with no loop holes to begin with. However, this falls apart for things like health insurance and SS. If one partner in the marriage decides to stay home and raise children does this mean that they should have no access to health care or SS benefits should the working spouse die? This is the real crux of the problem from my perspective.
AllenS at August 5, 2010 7:09 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/08/04/prop_8_overturn.html#comment-1739859">comment from AllenSI don't agree with marriage privileging, but if straight people get it, gays should, too.
I think people should have individual contracts within their marriages for their rights/responsibilities. I'd like to see the government out of the marriage business.
Of course, if your church wants to exclude Jews, gays, or people with mustaches from marrying, that's its prerogative.
Amy Alkon at August 5, 2010 7:15 AM
Then some guy will want to marry his gun and some woman will want to marry her wedding gown because she never got married and this is as close as she could get.
Neither of which will do anything to affect you.Gun smiths are much cheaper than pediatricians as are tailors. The only fear I have with recognizing all marriage in poligamy. However free fucking money for indigent breeders happens regarless of marriage. Do away with free rides and there is no logical objection to anyones marriage.
It doesn't say they can't in the constitution so it must be okay.
Yup that's pretty much how it works and how it should work. If we followed that then there would be no drug war. Prohibition would never have happened. I wouldn't have to spend 3 hour buying a firearm because the feds are busy. Something being morally right or wrong should remain beyond the pervue of government.
vlad at August 5, 2010 7:34 AM
I'm sory but I fail to see the logic demanding that gay people spend thousands of dollars drawing up private contracts - which they then have to keep copies of on hand to molify the bigots they run across in the event of an emergency, while at the same time denying them medical coverage, survivors benifits, etc. When strait people can get all that for the cost of one marrige licence - which is free in most places.
I've been saying it for years. Get goverment out of marriage. Set up one general contract detailing the privilages that attch to civil unions with basic clauses for ali/palimony and child supposr percentages of income in cse of divorce and let any two consentling adults of leagal age and sound mind of any age or sex do whatever the hell they want.
Homosexual behavior has been seen in almost every order of the mamalian class and many birds an reptiles as well. Its normal, deal with it
lujlp at August 5, 2010 7:37 AM
"I don't disagree with Isabel1130 in that each person should be treated as an individual from a tax perspective. I believe in a flat tax with no loop holes to begin with. However, this falls apart for things like health insurance and SS. If one partner in the marriage decides to stay home and raise children does this mean that they should have no access to health care or SS benefits should the working spouse die? This is the real crux of the problem from my perspective."
It really doesn't fall apart when you realize that the only reason for a person to stay home and not build their own retirement, social security etc. is because they are raising children or are disabled. These issues are covered under health insurance, social security etc and are handled just fine for single people with children such as the divorced or the never married. Marriage neither automatically creates a dependent class no does it really provide for it since marriage these days is anything but stable.
I can testify that the marriage penalty is not a myth having done taxes at a volunteer for the military for several years. If you want to do the math, take two middles class incomes, add them together and look up the tax rate for married filing jointly. Then take each individual income and look up the tax rate for a single flier. Marriage will be penalized on average by a couple of thousand a year. If two unmarried individuals own real estate together that has a mortgage, they can achieve greater savings by trading years that they itemize, with the non itemizing owner taking the standard deduction than a married couple will ever achieve in tax savings. Don't get me started about married filing separately. There you generally pay the highest taxes of all.
There will be many unintended consequences if gay marriage becomes the law of the land. Having a few gay friends I bet a lot of gays are secretly hoping that gay marriage does not become legal because then they will be guilt-ed into getting married (and legally combining their assets with someone that they can't trust with joint bank account or credit card) Also if marriage is redefined as a constitutional right, what prevents brother-sister, father-daughter marriages if tax laws favor that relationship over the familial one? Isabel
Isabel1130 at August 5, 2010 8:03 AM
Religion is what keeps people from wanting to allow gay marriage, and we are supposed to be a secular state, and it's time we started acting like it.
So you're saying that, without religion, people would automatically want to allow it? I recall you posting an item some months ago that asserted that revulsion was the reason for opposition to gay marriage or gay rights, IIRC. I'm not sure that absence of religion would make said revulsion go away.
mpetrie98 at August 5, 2010 8:51 AM
Speaking of Prop. 8, where in the world is Patrick? I figured that he'd be all over this thread by now.
mpetrie98 at August 5, 2010 8:59 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/08/04/prop_8_overturn.html#comment-1739874">comment from mpetrie98Revulsion isn't an argument for denying people rights, nor is religion.
Amy Alkon at August 5, 2010 9:01 AM
Said revulstion of gay people is usually rooted in religion
lujlp at August 5, 2010 9:04 AM
Isabel, a couple of responses to your post:
(i) If there is a marriage penalty for some married couples, my response would be - so? Perhaps married couples should pay more in some taxes as they receive well over 1,000 federal benefits - plus a myriad of state benefits as well. Some of these benefits are tax-related to begin with - for example, a married person can be on his spouse's health insurance plan and receive those health benefits TAX FREE - whereas, a non-married person would have to pay income taxes on that benefit. Also, as I've mentioned before, a married person can collect social security survivor benefits - an unmarried person cannot - that can add up to quite a bit. If the marriage penalty was so onerous, then the logical result would be that it would discourage people from marrying. I HAVE NEVER HEARD OF ANY COUPLE, GAY OR STRAIGHT, DECIDING NOT TO GET MARRIED BECAUSE OF THE MARRIAGE PENALTY. Have you?
(ii) Regarding your unintended consequences, why should gay people in relationships be exempt from being pressured into marriage any more than straight people. I know many straight people who have pressured (or have tried to pressure) their significant others into marriage. The solution isn't to make gay marriage illegal (and take away the right of some devoted couples) - the solution is the same one currently exercised by many straight people - if you don't feel that your partner is someone upon whom you can rely (or trust), THEN DON'T MARRY HIM.
Do you seriously believe that gay marriage will lead to "incest" marriages? If so, please provide links to studies that support your conclusion. Good luck with that. And, why is the onus put on gay people/gay marriage for any future direction of marriage. Why don't you blame the court-directed elimination of anti-miscegenation laws, or the elimination of coverture (i.e., a woman gave all her property to her husband upon being married and was prohibited from owning any property in her own name after the marriage) by courts and legislatures in the 19th century.
factsarefacts at August 5, 2010 9:06 AM
Jeebus, such deep thinkers here
ron at August 5, 2010 9:23 AM
"Revulsion isn't an argument for denying people rights, nor is religion." Absolutely true, but as pointed out by others on this thread, marriage, is not a "right" per say. If it was you wouldn't need a license from the state to have one, anymore than you need a license to be able to vote. But even "rights" are subject to restrictions, as there are age restrictions for voting,and age restrictions and licensing restrictions for owning or carrying a weapon in many states.
I don't have a dog in this fight one way or the other. I don't think our tax, insurance or inheritance laws should favor or disfavor married individuals over single ones. I do think however that history has shown us that legislating from the bench is bad policy for our country because results oriented jurisprudence leads to social battles in this country that never end. Witness Roe v. Wade. Roe v. Wade may be the law of the land but it is impossible to obtain an abortion in the state that I live in. No doctor will do one, and the federal government does not have the power to force him to perform them. (Thank God) Another good example is term limits for legislators. This country is getting to the point where we are going to need a constitutional convention to fix the problems created by the courts over riding the legislature, and the will of the people. Isabel
Isabel1130 at August 5, 2010 9:31 AM
"I know many straight people who have pressured (or have tried to pressure) their significant others into marriage."
My first wife's proposal, "We've been together four years. It's time to shit or get off the pot."
Now that I think about it, 'shit' is a good description of the marriage.
Steamer at August 5, 2010 9:32 AM
"(i) If there is a marriage penalty for some married couples, my response would be - so? Perhaps married couples should pay more in some taxes as they receive well over 1,000 federal benefits - plus a myriad of state benefits as well. Some of these benefits are tax-related to begin with - for example, a married person can be on his spouse's health insurance plan and receive those health benefits TAX FREE - whereas, a non-married person would have to pay income taxes on that benefit."
My original post was in response to a statement that the marriage penalty is a myth. It is not. However, in answer to your question, my position is that the federal government and state government should not be picking winners and losers through the tax system based on whether you are married or not.
The non tax status of health insurance in general is one of the major drivers for fueling the health care cost crisis in this country, but in my opinion the solution is in the tax laws, not in redefining marriage.
"Also, as I've mentioned before, a married person can collect social security survivor benefits - an unmarried person cannot - that can add up to quite a bit. If the marriage penalty was so onerous, then the logical result would be that it would discourage people from marrying. I HAVE NEVER HEARD OF ANY COUPLE, GAY OR STRAIGHT, DECIDING NOT TO GET MARRIED BECAUSE OF THE MARRIAGE PENALTY. Have you?"
Well if you had heard of it, it would be anecdotal evidence which is what I am offering here but yes, I know many people without children who chose to stay unmarried because they are smart enough to do the math and realize that financially they are both better off single. I also know others who have visited an accountant to talk this over so they know exactly what a marriage license will cost them. I myself would never remarry if something were to happen to my husband because the tax system would penalize me for it. For non anecdotal evidence I note that the shack up rate in the country is way up historically and the tax issues (and joint property issues) in the event of a divorce, seem to be a good candidate for one of the causes.
"Do you seriously believe that gay marriage will lead to "incest" marriages? If so, please provide links to studies that support your conclusion." No I don't believe that gay marriage will lead directly to incest marriages. What I believe is that manipulating the judicial system and constitutional law to find a fundamental right to gay marriage will open the door to both polygamists and incestuous unions, (first cousins and closer) to sharing those same fundamental rights on the same basis as gay couples. But you have to know something about how how the legal system operates to understand how this can happen and has happened in the past. I have no problem with a state legislature or a referendum making gay marriage legal in any state or the entire country. I do have a problem with it being accomplished through judicial fiat. Isabel
Isabel1130 at August 5, 2010 10:09 AM
Amy: asks: "Do you think it's Constitutional to deny gays the rights to marry?"
Yes. Under the 10th Amendment, the sanctioning of marriage is a power reserved to the states. The federal government has no say-so one way or the other. (This is why the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional.) The states are free to make whatever laws they like regarding marriage, so long as they do not violate the 14th Amendment, which states that no person shall be denied rights except by due process of law. Under this principle, racial segregation was legal, until the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed. As as far as I know, the Civil Rights Act says nothing about discrimination based on sex. A lot of things that people think are in the 14th Amendment really aren't there; that's in part because activist judges have used the 14th Amendment as an all-purpose rationalization for absolutely anything they wanted to do.
Now, having said all that: I think gay marriage should be legal. At the fundamental level, I agree that in this day and age there is no good reason to ban it, and if there is no good reason for something to be illegal, it should be legal. (In saying so, we must recognize that it amounts to a big uncontrolled social experiment; I have some concerns about the raising of children by gay couples, since there aren't many reliable studies on the topic. But given the conditions that we're already raising a lot of our children under, I concede that the additional risk is negligible.)
However: as in the case of legalizing liquor sales, there's a right way and a wrong way to go about it, and the gay lobby seems bound and determined to go about it the wrong way. The reason that Prop 8 passed in the first place was because the lobby did its best to scare the hell out of everyone. And then when it didn't pass, that seemed to give them permission to go crazy on people, picketing at random homes and such. That sort of stuff turns off most of the straights and a fair number of gays too. This seems to be exactly what they wanted to happen, because it them gave them an excuse to play the victim card -- which they have just now done, very successfully.
And there is indeed a slippery-slope argument here, regarding the legalization of polygamy and other abnormal relationships. Lawrence v. Texas appears to have cracked open the door for it, and this went a little further. People who scoff should remember that it doesn't matter how many times courts reject this argument; all it takes is for one judge, one time, to accept it, and then it will become precedent.
If there were a referendum on a federal Constitutional amendment to legalize gay marriage, I would happily vote for it. However, I will always oppose attempts to cram it down everyone's throats via extra-constitutional means. If gays want marriage, they need to bring the moral arguments forth to the people, as blacks did in the 1960s. Bring up the "Hey, we're Americans too, and we want to live the way Americans do" argument. What they've done instead is bring up the "Hey, we're a bunch of freaks out to destroy your society, and there's nothing you can do about it, ha ha" argument. How many times have both Amy and us commenters said it here before: The Constitution is not a suicide pact.
Cousin Dave at August 5, 2010 10:35 AM
Hey Isabel, just in response:
If you believe that the judicial system should not be messing with marriage (but it should be done via the legislature or referendum), then I have a couple of questions.
Do you believe that the Supreme Court's decision in Loving v. Virginia (which found miscegenation laws unconstitutional) and the myriad of judicial decisions eliminating coverture were incorrectly decided - and black/white couples and women should have waited for the legislature (or the voters) to decide in their favor (if ever)?
If you don't believe that gay marriage will lead directly to incest marriages, why did you mention it in the first place? If your premise was that the judiciary should stay out of marriage decisions, why didn't you say so directly. Please also explain that (I'm assuming you're a woman) you would prefer women to go back to the principle of coverture until the legislature or referendums eliminate it.
Please also explain the chances of gay people (who, according to varying estimates, comprise anywhere between 1% to up to 10% of the population - a clear minority - and an often discriminated-against minority) convincing the majority of voters to recognize gay marriage?
Please also feel free to list the all the rights and privileges you enjoy that you feel should be up to majority rule (i.e., that you would accept being eliminated, if the majority expressed that it wanted to be eliminated).
factsarefacts at August 5, 2010 11:11 AM
Cousin Dave, I thik the argument can be made that the fed is involved in marrige due to, at the very least, the interstate commerce act.
Otherwise a contractual marrge preformed in california would be null and void anywhere else in america
lujlp at August 5, 2010 11:53 AM
I don't have a lot of time to google right now, but you can find plenty on "atheist anti-gay marriage" and the like, so I think the religion argument is a load of hogwash. I don't care who people fuck, and until maybe 5 years ago was pro-gay marriage. Now, I'm not. I think much like welfare for single moms, it seems all nice and warm and fuzzy but will have lots of unintended and probably bad consequences.
"if you're going to offer marriage, it needs to be offered to every couple, equally, and there is no constitutional right to favor one arrangement of sexes in this contract over another set in marriage."
Why only couples? You can also google and find activities of polygamists who are most definately planning to ride the coattails of gays into legal plural marriages. Yes, a lot of people will say "who cares" but WE care, because our courts and tax dollars will be taken up dealing with property and child disputes at the inevitable (even more complicated) break-up.
The direction we need to be going is making it harder for people to get married, not easier. This decision needs some time and thought behind it.
I could get behind legal unions for the "tax benefits" (which are a load of hogwash) and inheritance. I don't think companies should be forced to give medical insurance to anyone. They can decide what best suits their company and the employees they want to attract and retain. No need for government in that.
Jane Galt writes well on this.
momof4 at August 5, 2010 11:58 AM
Hey Cousin Dave:
Just a couple of questions for you:
(i) Do you think a state law that prohibits recognition of gay marriage legally performed in another state violates the "Full Faith and Credit Clause" of the Constitution. Along the same lines, what about domestic partnerships and civil unions that some states have approved, but other states won't recognize at all because such arrangements are not recognized in the laws of such states?
(ii) There have been studies about children being raised by gay parents. Here's a link: http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20051012/study-same-sex-parents-raise-well-adjusted-kids. That's just one reference, but an internet search will bring up many more. But, according to the article I linked to, there are anywhere between 1 to 6 million children being raised by gays and lesbians.
(iii) Please don't stereotype the "gay lobby". There are many different kinds of gay people. I seem to recall the overwhelming majority of those in favor of the Civil Rights Movement went about things in a peaceful manner - but there was a small minority (like the Weathermen Underground) who resorted to violence. I'm a member of the gay lobby and I don't believe in picketing people's private homes and I have never done so. I think peacefully picketing a business or a church is generally fine. Anyway, I'm not aware of the "gay lobby" picketing people's homes - although I am aware of the internet publishing of names of persons who have contributed to the anti-gay movement (such lists having been compiled from publicly available information). I am also not aware of any gay person physically attacking or injuring another person over this issue. Could you point out instances of gays picketing a person's home - that's a tactic often reserved for Fred Phelps and his clan who enjoy doing that to gay people.
(iv) Many of the accomplishments of the Civil Rights Movements were obtained through the judiciary (Brown v. Bd. of Ed., for example). Many people and commentators at the time though the judiciary was cramming change down people's throats in an extra-constitutional manner - especially considering that the Supreme Court had decided in the past based on constitution that segregation was fine (ex., Plessy v. Ferguson).
(v) I'm not aware of any gay people whose motto is "Hey, we're a bunch of freaks ..." - it's quite the opposite, that gay people are hard-working, tax-paying Americans who want the same rights and privileges as everyone else. It's the anti-gay marriage proponents who have taken the tact of labeling gay people freaks who are out to destroy society.
factsarefacts at August 5, 2010 12:14 PM
I'm certain that most people who post here are against the state-sanctioned adultery of polygamous marriage. If it's been this difficult for homosexuals to get the legal rights of marriage, imagine the near-impossibility (hopefully impossibility) of legal sanction for "plural" marriages.
mpetrie98 at August 5, 2010 12:22 PM
"Do you believe that the Supreme Court's decision in Loving v. Virginia (which found miscegenation laws unconstitutional) and the myriad of judicial decisions eliminating coverture were incorrectly decided - and black/white couples and women should have waited for the legislature (or the voters) to decide in their favor (if ever)?
"Loving v. Virginia is not what you think it is, nor was the basis for the decision any kind of fundamental constitutional right to marriage. It was correctly decided in my opinion on the basis of racism in that the statute under which the Lovings were convicted only applied to whites marrying other races. There were no penalties for blacks marrying native Americans or orientals etc. Race is a suspect class and therefore gets strict scrutiny by the supreme court. Sexual orientation, in previous Supreme court rulings has so far not entitled you to a strict scrutiny standard. Why do I think your attempt to make me defend this is because you start with the assumption that marriage either is or should be a fundamental constitutional right? I have already said that is where our disagreement lies.
Coverture is another question. It basically could not ever be constitutional after women got the right to vote through a constitutional amendment(somewhat later than blacks did I might add)
"Please also explain the chances of gay people (who, according to varying estimates, comprise anywhere between 1% to up to 10% of the population - a clear minority - and an often discriminated-against minority) convincing the majority of voters to recognize gay marriage"
I think it is coming as did wide acceptance of inter racial marriage which was not accepted at all when I was a child. I repeat, I think the state/ feds should be out of the business of either recognizing or regulating marriage in and of itself, but to answer your questions, I bring up these other issues because in my view and education, the courts finding a broad based "right" to marriage will make it very difficult to carve out an exception for polygamists, and incestuous relationships. It is called "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" Yea, we think "ick" now about these sorts of relationships but in other times and other places, incest and polygamy have BEEN THE NORM and may become so again.
Discrimination in this country is not yet totally illegal. Fortunately I am still allowed to make some decisions without opening up my head and removing my brain. I discriminate every time I chose to buy one product over another, live in a low crime area,as opposed to a high crime one, drive a foreign import instead of an American made car. pick my health insurance or send my children to a private school, and pick who my friends are. The courts so far have only found a few types of discrimination worthy of judicial intervention and even then there usually has to be a government actor. Learn something about the various levels of scrutiny that is applied to government actions and what due process and equal protection are in relation to the constitution and then we can carry this debate over to Volokh where it belongs. Isabel
Isabel1130 at August 5, 2010 12:40 PM
Facts, let me hit on a few things:
"Do you think a state law that prohibits recognition of gay marriage legally performed in another state violates the "Full Faith and Credit Clause" of the Constitution. "
Yes it does. There's plenty of precedence for that. States have long had different minimum ages for marriage, and there's plenty of court decisions that says that state A must recognize a marriage legally performed in state B, even if one of the partners would be too young to legally marry in state B. I said previously that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional under the 10th Amendment, and you actually brought up a second reason that I forgot to mention: Congress cannot waive the Full Faith and Credit Clause by statute. However, there's still a difference between requiring that states must recognize marriages performed in other states, and that states must agree to conform to a federal standard in who they will marry.
"Please don't stereotype the "gay lobby". There are many different kinds of gay people. " Fair enough. I'm referring specifically to certain groups in California, such as ACT-UP. Gay Patriot has written quite a bit about this issue; I'll try to dig up some references when I have more time.
"There have been studies about children being raised by gay parents". Thanks for the link. I will admit to still having concerns, but I'll concede this point.
"Many of the accomplishments of the Civil Rights Movements were obtained through the judiciary (Brown v. Bd. of Ed., for example). " That doesn't cut any ice with me; I still claim that that was the wrong approach and caused more problems than it solved. As a point, consider that those same judges went directly from there to forced school busing, where the judges more or less seized control of school districts. There was a time in the '70s and early '80s where judged wielded dictatorial authority over schools all over the country. There was a time when I was in college that it didn't look like I was going to get my degree because a federal judge wasn't sure that my school should be allowed to offer that degree, because it would be "unfair competition" with a historically-black school in the same town. Occasionally absolute power is used for good purposes, but once that door is opened, there is nothing to stop it from being used for bad purposes.
"I'm not aware of any gay people whose motto is "Hey, we're a bunch of freaks ..." - it's quite the opposite, that gay people are hard-working, tax-paying Americans who want the same rights and privileges as everyone else. "
I guess you've never seen the Gay St. Patrick's Day Parade in NYC, or been at Disney World during Gay Days. I agree with you that most gays are not like that. HOWEVER... they are allowing those groups to set their agenda. It's the same thing with the feminists; they allow the extremists to set their agenda, and because of it, all of feminism is now tarnished. Whites got rid of the KKK. Minority groups need to start doing the equivalent.
Cousin Dave at August 5, 2010 1:37 PM
Based on the Court's rationale, our laws prohibiting incest, polygamy, and even bestiality, are now indefensible and unconstitutional. After all, they are all based on the majority's sense of traditional morality -- which may not now be imposed on a minority group.
Next up will be laws giving any preference to married people at all. Why should the children of unmarried parents have to face the "shame" that their parents are not given all of the rights and privileges of married couples, and so are treated as "second class citizens"?
Marriage is effectively dead, and the gays and lesbians who seek it are like passengers fighting to get a place on the Titanic -- they are going to go down with the ship, which is sinking even faster with their presence.
Jay R at August 5, 2010 1:40 PM
Hey Isabel, regardless of the rationale for the court's decision in Loving v. Virginia, it was still a judicial decision that affected the law re: marriage and redefined marriage in several states. You had expressed your disdain for judicial activism in in the area of marriage - and that it should be the legislature or referendum that should be the deciders.
I don't necessarily think that marriage is a constitutional right. Although the Supreme Court in Loving may have implied that marriage is some sort of right when it stated: "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."
And while I am entirely aware of the various distinctions of suspect classes and levels of scrutiny (I'm an attorney BTW), generally, I expect a rational basis for the government denying any group of Americans rights or privileges that are granted to other Americans. As Amy has discussed above and previously, religious belief and the "ick factor" are not valid rationales. I've heard the "slippery slope" argument that you and others have mentioned before; I've also asked for evidence that gay marriage will lead to "incest marriages" or polygamy being legal. If you really believe that marriage is headed down this slippery slope, then why place all the blame on gay marriage and gay people - why not focus on other judicial decisions (or laws affecting marriage) that are also part of this slippery slope as well (collectively, "Other Marriage Decisions"). Please point out what these Other Marriage Decisions are and how they are leading to incest and polygamy. Please use studies and facts. (PS: I know, for example, that Denmark, the first country to legalize same sex marriage in 1989 has yet to approve polygamy. In fact, in this one instance I found, Denmark concluded in 2008 that bigamy was contrary to Danish marriage law -- see http://islamineurope.blogspot.com/2008/05/denmark-polygamist-wants-to-move-to.html) I know it's still a bit early to tell in this country, but Massachusetts was the first state to legalize same sex marriage in 2004 (6 years ago), yet I have yet to hear of one instance in that state of anyone trying to make polygamy, incest, marriage to an animal or an object legal in any shape or form. Could it be possible to just accept the legalization of same sex marriage and deal with these other "variants" of marriage if they even ever arise. Until you can prove to me otherwise how gay marriage and these Other Marriage Decisions are leading to incest and polygamy, I will continue to consider this argument specious and not rationally based.
[PS: Momof4 wrote "You can also google and find activities of polygamists who are most definately planning to ride the coattails of gays into legal plural marriages." Well, I just ran the a google search and couldn't find anything other than some people proffering the same opinion that Isabel gave. Perhaps Momof4 could point me to a link to some polygamist group that is watching the gay marriage debate and judicial decisions to support her conclusion?????]
I've heard many specious arguments against gay marriage (from procreation, biological children only, ...), none of which are rationally based because they ignore the fact that such items are not required of heterosexuals wanting to get married or who are married. This argument also ignores that fact that many gay couples are raising children.
Isabel, I have absolutely no problem with you making decisions about what products you wish to buy or whether you send your children to a private school or how you pick your friends. I would never argue otherwise. I also do not have a problem if the government discriminates against certain groups -- as long as there are rational bases for such discrimination. It has been court decisions again (those pesky judges) who have decided what groups are in suspect classifications and the corresponding level of scrutiny such classifications will receive. It's interesting to note that in the Prop 8 case, the state of California has placed sexual orientation in a suspect class (i.e., requiring courts to employ strict scrutiny for laws making distinctions based on sexual orientation). As I'm sure you're aware, strict scrutiny places an extraordinarily heavy burden on the state to justify laws that discriminate. That's what this case was about.
factsarefacts at August 5, 2010 2:10 PM
Hi Dave, I confess I've never been to Gay Disney days, but I have been to the Gay Pride Parade in NYC many times. The last time was 2 years ago and it was pretty boring actually - the vast majority of groups marching were, surprisingly, religiously-affiliated groups (some Christian church's gay group or some mosque's gay group). As an aside (I don't know if this will affect your perception of "freaky"), but at every parade I've been to, the organizers and the NYC police department love to reiterate the statement that not one gay person has ever been arrested at the gay pride parade. I asked the cops I know (who are straight) what parades they prefer working (as they usu. get paid overtime) and all of them have stated they like the gay pride parade because it's problem-free -- as opposed to other parades (which I won't mention in detail, but does include the "family-friendly" Thanksgiving Day parade).
factsarefacts at August 5, 2010 2:26 PM
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23435519-muslim-husbands-with-more-than-one-wife-to-get-extra-benefits-as-ministers-recognise-polygamy.do
Not from Denmark but from the UK. Does this count?
Isabel1130 at August 5, 2010 3:49 PM
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/480
Ok here is another good one. Why don't you read it all "factsarefacts" and tell me again how polygamy is not a problem and there is no evidence for a slippery slope?
Isabel1130 at August 5, 2010 4:03 PM
"our courts and tax dollars will be taken up dealing with property and child disputes at the inevitable (even more complicated) break-up."
Straight married couples have already used tax payer funded court resources to resolve complicated child issues, thanks to their use of technology and contracts to create children.
Sperm and egg "donation," embryo "adoption" and "donation," and surrogacy contracts seek both to sever and to create relationships as a condition for bringing people into existence. Then someone changes his or her mind, and a court case ensues.
This news article below gives an abbreviated account of one case that involved three children, and four adults who each claimed parenthood rights. They sought resolution from at least two, if not three, state judicial systems.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06112/684300-85.stm
International fertility tourism also creates the potential for complications that could require federal government intervention.
Michelle at August 5, 2010 4:34 PM
Thanks for the references, Isabel. I did read them but could not find anywhere in them that would lead to the conclusion that legalization of gay marriage was the cause of certain Muslim men living in Europe trying to have more than one wife. I believe that it's the interpretation of the Koran and certain Muslim/Arabic-Persian practices that are the causes - not gay marriage. In fact, I'm about 100% sure that these same Muslims wanting to have more than one wife would be absolutely horrified by the idea of gay people being able to get married. The article that you referenced in the brusselsjournal, which claimed that the Netherlands permitted a Dutch man to marry 2 bisexual women is alas FALSE. See http://www.anonymousliberal.com/2005/10/is-polygamy-really-legal-in.html.
You still have yet to show me how gay marriage and the Other Marriage Decisions will lead to polygamy and incest. (C'mon, legalized civil gay marriage in the Western World is a fairly recent phenomenon - certainly not older than 50/60 years. Certain Muslim sects have been practicing polygamy for well over a millenium. If anything, the argument should be in the reverse, LOL.) What are these Other Marriage Decisions? Which ones are on the "slippery slope"? Which ones should be repealed?
Your UK reference is especially specious because the UK doesn't even recognize gay marriage. British gays only have civil partnerships available to them (and only since 2005). The article to which you linked wasn't even about a man attempting to have the British government grant official marriage status to his second wife, it was about certain other social benefits extending to spouses that he was after - it also involved treaties (i.e., British recognition of marriages contracts validly entered into other countries). The article also stated that bigamy was still against the law in the UK and that the UK tried to address the problem by passing an immigration law in 1988 that made it more difficult for immigrants to bring more than one wife into the UK. Wouldn't it be a better approach for the US to deal with this issue via its treaties with other countries as well as its immigration laws -- as opposed to banning gay marriage.
PLEASE DO NOT INFER THAT I HAVE EVER IMPLIED OR STATED THAT POLYGAMY IS NOT A PROBLEM. If you read all of my posts, I have never claimed that polygamy or incest are problem-free or should be legalized in this country. I used to have neighbors who emigrated from Yemen; the father explained to me that one of the reasons he and his family decided to leave Yemen was because the practice of polygamy effectively barred his sons (who were poor and were therefore not desirable husband-material, from the standpoint of other Yemeni families who were trying to find appropriate matches for their daughters) from getting married. There's a rational reason for not being in favor of polygamy.
I've also read stories about the polygamous Mormon sects in Utah and Arizona. I would link - but I'm limited to only one per post. Given that the birth rate is roughly 50/50 in terms of gender (please note, I'm conveniently excluding the gay population), these Mormon sects have had to develop certain practices in order to facilitate their polygamous lifestyles. The question is: what do you do with extra boys when there aren't enough wives to go around??? Solution: you excommunicate them when they're teenagers and banish them from the community and prohibit them from ever seeing their families again. Many of these teenage boys, because of their ages and with very little real-life experience, of course, have become burdens on the state. Some of them are traumatized for life because they've been cast off from their families and communities for no logical reason (the Mormons usually come up with some specious reason to get rid of them) at a fairly young age. There's another rationale for not being in favor of polygamy.
Even the brusselsjournal article that you referenced stated that the Muslim men bringing their multiple wives into Norway is creating an enormous burden on Norway's social welfare system. There's another valid rationale against polygamy.
Your brusselsjournal article also referenced British interpretation being asked to be altered to permit multiple Muslim wives to divide the inheritance of their husband. This is only the tip of the iceberg of changes in law and regulations governing marriage that will have to be drafted in order to accommodate polygamy in the US. In the case of a divorce of one wife from the group, is the consent of the other wives required (any, all, or a majority)? Will the remaining spouses be responsible for alimony payments or child support? (again, any, all, or just the ones who supported the ousting of one of the wives)? Will the other wive be entitled to child visitation rights? As I said, this is the tip of the iceberg? Our current legal scheme involving marriage simply is not currently equipped to handle these and other questions and it will be an enormous burden upon the government in addressing these issues from all branches of government - especially considering that the number of people currently seeking polygamous marriages in the US is fairly negligible. (This cannot be said of same-sex couples). This is another rationale against polygamy.
OK: I've given a few rational reasons why I'm against polygamy. PLEASE FOLLOW SUIT WITH RATIONAL REASONS AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE.
factsarefacts at August 5, 2010 5:31 PM
(the Mormons usually come up with some specious reason to get rid of them) at a fairly young age
factsarefacts
Damnit factsarefacts, you are putting me in the only position in a debate I truly loathe - defending a religion. Even worse defending mormonism. Unfortunaty the people on the arizona/utah boarder with the ranch in texas are not affiliated with mormonism in any way. And very loosely affiliated with them in doctrine.
Its like saying the nut jobs in Wako were the same as the main 7th Day Adventists, or that the Shakers were the same as the Quakers
lujlp at August 5, 2010 7:02 PM
Sorry, lujlp, lol. I should have specified it as an extreme fundamentalist Mormon-related sect or used other language. The sect certainly shares a common origin with today's current mainstream Mormons? Yes? Hildale, Utah is the headquarters of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, which is described as one of of largest Mormon fundamentalist denominations.
factsarefacts at August 5, 2010 7:52 PM
As aside, where are patrick and lovelysoul? I always enjoyed reading their input - especially on topics like this.
factsarefacts at August 5, 2010 8:28 PM
Facts, thanks for the discussion. It may not seem like it, but I'm trying to be on your side here. To sum up, my argument is not gay marriage per se, but the legal and political tactics they are using. I think they run a large risk of creating a backlash, which is pretty much what Prop 8 was. It makes me wonder if they really want to achieve the stated goal, or if they just want to be able to play the victim card.
Cousin Dave at August 6, 2010 8:03 AM
As with any large movment COusin Dave the answer is always (d)All of the above.
Maybe there are indeed some gays being assholes about it - never seen any personally and having grown up as a mormon I dont think there is anything short of killing a few of them or assualting them(mormons I mean) that could be considered going to far in protesting the roll they played.
My original point was to be that I'm sure during the civil rights movment and the womens lib movment there were people who thought those activist were going to far and pushing too hard as well
lujlp at August 6, 2010 10:25 AM
Leave a comment