MontereyJack
 
  2  
Reply Wed 27 May, 2009 09:16 pm
Still wrong, McG. Marriage is a CIVIL institution. You don't get the licenses, you're not married, even if a church performs it.The state cannot force a church to perform a same-sex marriage--you know, freedom of religion--remember that? And all the same-sex marriage statutes now, as far as I know, specifically exempt churches from having to perform them if they don't believe in them. Congratulations, you've created a new red herring.
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Wed 27 May, 2009 09:39 pm
@McGentrix,
Quote:

Should a church be required to wed anyone because the law says it is legal? Would you be willing to see a civil action brought forth against a community church because a homosexual couple desires to have their "wedding" in a church because they are of the faith? That's where it's heading. It's ridiculous if you ask me. You are forcing a group of people to practice something that goes against their very core beliefs. I am sure Cyc will barge in calling them bigots, but they are not. They are just people that disagree with you.


Nope! I don't think equality laws should be imposed on churches. I think society will naturally weed out those who discriminate over time, as society realizes that formalizing that which has already been going on, and always will go on, isn't really that big a deal.

I'd be happy with all 'marriages' being reduced to legal civil unions, and religious ceremonial marriages based on personal beliefs. It would simplify things for everyone. But I don't think separate is equal, and I don't think calling people something different based on their sexual orientation works out well in the long run.

Cycloptichorn
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 May, 2009 10:11 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
All these bozos who are against gay marriage doesn't understand "equal protections under the law." The christian religions teach them "god said....", and that's enough for them.
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 May, 2009 01:25 am
@cicerone imposter,
Yes, but Jesus said that everyone was equal regardless of the sins they have committed. We don't have Christian in America -- we have Stalinists disguised as Christians. It is 1984 and the conservative fundamentalists have reverted back to the Dark Ages and are ready for the Inquisition. Their mantra is screw the constitution. Just like Bush.
0 Replies
 
genoves
 
  0  
Reply Thu 28 May, 2009 02:01 am
I think that Lightwizard is correct. We are Stalinists in this country. In the country where Freedom is the highest value, we meddle in the sexual practices of free peoples. I have been trying to impress people for years that what is called beastiality( that is a pejoritive, of course) is merely true love between a person and their pet.

No one who has seen the magnificent play, The Goat or Who is Sylvia( written by one of our greatest playwrites, Edward Albee) can fail to recognize that there are people whose sexual needs are unmet because of bigotry.

The story is simple. A man is completely in love with his pet goat. His wife, insanely jealous that he would prefer carnal love with a goat than with her, murders the goat and at the end of the play, drags the body into the living room. The poor husband's incredible anguish brought tears to my eyes.

Lightwizard is correct. My correspondence with the members of NAMBLA and the Animal Lovers reveal that bigotry against those who want NOTHING else but to LOVE, is still alive in America.
0 Replies
 
genoves
 
  0  
Reply Thu 28 May, 2009 02:11 am
Spendius-- Your anecdote about your explanation in a pub regarding lesbians and what they do was quite good. I had a similar experience last year when we were talking about movies in the local tavern. One person mentioned that there was going to be a remake of "Bang the Drum Slowly" --a very sad movie about Baseball and the imminent death of one of the heroes--the pitcher. His best friend was the catcher.

We learned that the remake might use characters from the Academy Award Winning--Brokeback Mountian but we could not decide who would be the pitcher and who the catcher!
0 Replies
 
CoastalRat
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 May, 2009 06:52 am
I called a friend of mine last night. I did this because I wanted the opinion of someone who has a dog in this fight. She is the daughter of a former neighber of mine who happened to be a rather involved figure in the fight for gay "rights." She herself is a lesbian and has been with her partner for more than 15 years. I've known her for nearly 35 years, ever since she was a young child. After being called a bigot by many on here, I wanted her honest opinion and knew she would give it to me, after all she has never held back any punches when we have discussed gay issues in the past.

Anyway, it seems she does not believe I am a bigot for holding beliefs that are different than hers. In fact, she doesn't think I hold my beliefs out of any fear either. She does believe that I am a bit close-minded when it comes to gay marriage since she would like to marry her partner and believes that right should be available to her. But she tells me she understands why I disagree and respects that opinion.

We had a good conversation, as we always do, and said our goodbyes without resorting to namecalling and such which is quite frankly counterproductive regardless of which side of this issue you stand.

BTW, like McG, I have no issue at all with civil unions which will grant all the benefits of marriage, even though I do have concerns about children growing up in homes without a mother and a father.
Woiyo9
 
  0  
Reply Thu 28 May, 2009 07:34 am
@CoastalRat,
It does not matter to the liberals.

You have an opposing point of view. Therefore, you must be a racist, bigot, homophobic (did I miss any?).
CoastalRat
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 May, 2009 07:54 am
@Woiyo9,
I think you pretty well covered it Woiyo9.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 May, 2009 08:52 am
@CoastalRat,
CoastalRat wrote:

I called a friend of mine last night. I did this because I wanted the opinion of someone who has a dog in this fight. She is the daughter of a former neighber of mine who happened to be a rather involved figure in the fight for gay "rights." She herself is a lesbian and has been with her partner for more than 15 years. I've known her for nearly 35 years, ever since she was a young child. After being called a bigot by many on here, I wanted her honest opinion and knew she would give it to me, after all she has never held back any punches when we have discussed gay issues in the past.

Anyway, it seems she does not believe I am a bigot for holding beliefs that are different than hers. In fact, she doesn't think I hold my beliefs out of any fear either. She does believe that I am a bit close-minded when it comes to gay marriage since she would like to marry her partner and believes that right should be available to her. But she tells me she understands why I disagree and respects that opinion.

We had a good conversation, as we always do, and said our goodbyes without resorting to namecalling and such which is quite frankly counterproductive regardless of which side of this issue you stand.

BTW, like McG, I have no issue at all with civil unions which will grant all the benefits of marriage, even though I do have concerns about children growing up in homes without a mother and a father.


What should one call people, who seek to deny others' rights, based on their sexuality? What word do you think it appropriate for it?

We aren't talking about what beer you like, or what your preferred NASCAR team is; we're talking about something that is currently limiting and causing a lot of pain to people.

If you don't have a problem granting all the rights that are associated with marriage, with all that entails, why not just call it marriage? What about that sticks in your craw? Why does it bother you to call it marriage? How will it affect you if homosexuals get married? I have yet to hear good answers to these questions, and answers which are not based in fear.

I wonder how you guys would feel about a law discriminating against White Males, based purely on people's opinion of your behavior. My guess is you wouldn't accept the arguments others put forth as to why you should just shut up about it and stop making waves.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 May, 2009 09:35 am
First of all -- a pet or farm animal is not a consenting adult. Period. The analogy is idiotic. (But I expect that from idiots).

The big gay shrug
Sorry, enemies of gay marriage. Prop 8 or no, you've already lost

By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist

Wednesday, May 27, 2009


Here's a fun thing to do to calm your frazzled, saddened nerves in the wake of the CA Supreme Court's very unfortunate, but also merely annoying and karmically fleeting Proposition 8 decision:

Head on down to your local high school -- hell, make it a junior high or even an elementary -- and take yourself an informal survey. Ask the various wary, bepimpled youth of Generation Tweet what they think about those scary gay people getting married.

Ask them, in your most panicky, alarmist, Mormonified voice: Aren't they horrified at the very idea? Aren't they shocked at the very thought of two people in love having their union officially recognized and validated by the state?

Don't they know the musty ol' Bible mutters some barely coherent, mistranslated silliness about it in a single word or two written 1,500 years ago in a long dead language by acidic church elders with powermad political agendas and violently repressed libidos who nevertheless wish to instruct us all how to live and love and screw?

Please note the response. Please observe how the kids merely look at you as though you're more than a little bit deranged and prehistoric, so out of touch you might as well be Dick Cheney talking up the diesel-powered rectal thermometers he so loved back in World War I.

Watch carefully as they sigh and roll their eyes, then whip out their Nokias to text their friends about how this creepy elder just tried to convince them that the harmless, yawningly commonplace homosexuality currently saturating the popular culture all around them, from fashion to Facebook, movies to "American Idol," is not only wrong, but so wrong that the law should ban it forever because... well, no one really seems to know exactly why.

Did you see it? That big, sighing shrug of what-the-hell-is-wrong-with-you, combined with lots of who-the-hell-cares? Because that's the reaction to note most of all.

Here is what it tells you: Gay marriage is a foregone conclusion. It's a done deal. It's just a matter of time. For the next generation in particular, equal rights for gays is not even a question or a serious issue, much less a sinful hysterical conundrum that can only be answered by terrified Mormons and confused old people and inane referendums funded by same. It's just obvious, inevitable, a given.

Let us hereby be reminded, before sadness and frustration overwhelm once more: Proposition 8 and its ilk are merely the last, fitful gasps of a long-dying ideology, markers of a certain kind of sad, conservative desperation. They are the final clawings and scrapings of a reactionary worldview that attempts to outlaw and punish all it cannot, will not understand. Same as it ever was, really.

The pattern is as old as fear itself. Remember, only rarely does true progress appear as a single, momentous, Obama-like shift that reverberates across the planet and changes everything in an instant. Most frequently it comes in fits and starts and hiccups, small lurches and hard-fought battles shot through with little spitballs of hate and intolerance and heaps of misunderstanding. You know, just like now.

Evidence? Plenty. Just look at the numbers: Support for gay marriage is now the highest it's been in American history, somewhere between 42 and 48 percent nationwide. Just a few decades ago, support was down in the 20s. It's been rising steadily ever since, never once regressing.

Or, flip that data around. According to FiveThirtyEight, marriage bans like California's are losing support at a rate of about two percent a year. According to that model, more than half of U.S. states will vote against bans like the contemptible Prop 8 as soon as 2012, if not sooner. By 2024, even miserably homophobic joints like Alabama and Mississippi will be flying the rainbow flag.

You could say, then, that we are, right this minute, at the tipping point. You could say that very soon indeed -- sooner than many people expect, in fact -- we will all look back on this inane gay marriage hysteria and wonder, what the hell was that all about? What the hell were we thinking? And by the way, isn't President Obama's second term going just astonishingly well?

As for massive, schizophrenic California, well, what can we say? In our convoluted, lurching, two steps forward eight steps sideways sort of quasi-progressive way, we flail and flip and frequently fail. It's just our way.

We may be a die-hard blue state overall, full of revolutionary ideas and world-class academics, Nobel Laureates and wondrous alternative belief systems, but we are also messy and flat-footed and just too damn big for our own good, and our southern half is packed to the Orange County rafters with piles of aging social conservatives and religious zealots with far too little spiritual/sexual awareness and far too much money. Sorry.

It's an undeniable shame indeed that this powerful, iconic, world-altering state couldn't get its damnable act together on The Last Civil Right. But, you know, oh well. Can't be the vanguard for 'em all. Iowa and Massachusetts, et al, please show us how it's done. And by the way, thank you.

Do not misunderstand: Setbacks like this Prop 8 decision are painful and even cruel, and the gay couples and activists who've been at the forefront of the fight since the beginning are nothing short of heroic. Like civil rights activists of any stripe before them, the subsequent generations who will take gay rights for granted will have them to thank forevermore for paving the way and fighting the good fight.

What's more, there is still an enormous amount of work to be done, new referendums and protests and fundraisers and awareness-raisings. The change will not come without help and push. Hate and homophobia still seethe in myriad pockets of the culture and the populace at large, even trickling down to dumb-blond silicon-injected beauty pageant runner-ups who parrot the same childlike religious misinformation her handlers have pumped into her kind for 2,000 wickedly patriarchal years.

But these setbacks are not insurmountable roadblocks. They are merely obnoxious speed bumps on what social conservatives see as our nation's ungodly highway to hell. They only slow us down a little.

A new campaign in the fight for marriage equality is already taking shape. Evolution is happening, the energy and momentum are unstoppable. Simply put, the ignorance and homophobia that fueled and funded Prop 8 in the first place will not stand.

Don't believe it? Hey, just ask your kids.



Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 May, 2009 09:39 am
@MontereyJack,
That is correct -- they'll find a witch in the broom closet even if they don't have a broom closet. They're still happy warming up the stake.
0 Replies
 
CoastalRat
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 May, 2009 10:00 am
@Lightwizard,
Would it surprise you to learn I agree that gay marriage will eventually become the law in the US? I wrote over a year ago in a response to a certain gay-obsessed member that I believe it will eventually be allowed. But it certainly does not mean that one should stop opposing what one is against. Just as I would expect those currently fighting for gay marriage in states that have constitutionally banned it will continue to fight for it. It is a matter of fighting for the type of society a person wishes to live in.

I will accept and happily go about my business in our society when gay marriage finally does win, as I believe it will. But until then, my personal beliefs about the morality of gay marriage will continue to guide me. It has nothing to do with fear, because as has been pointed out more times than I can count, someone else's marriage has no affect on me.

In fact, if there is any fear on my part, it is something that my friend mentioned last night. She believes (although she hopes it does not happen) that once gay marriage is legal, someone will bring a lawsuit against a church for refusing to marry them. And while some here claim that won't happen, or that courts will not back it, I would bet a good bit of money that it will happen. But that's an argument for the future. lol

Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 May, 2009 10:04 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
No, you don't. You fear it. If you disagreed with it, you wouldn't care what other people do with THEIR lives - instead, you fear what it will do to YOUR life. This is the entire underlying reason for your and others' bigotry.


CoastalRat wrote:

Right. So, whenever someone disagrees with a viewpoint, it is because they fear the other viewpoint? You seriously believe that? So nobody can disagree with another person's view just because they hold a differing opinion, it's only fear?


My older sister has been married three times. She is currently engaged to be married for a fourth time. I've met her current husband-to-be and I have concerns about his character and the derogatory way he treats my sister. I may not agree with my sister's choice for her fourth husband, but I understand that she is entitled to live her own life and to make her own choices. I am not seeking to abuse the power of the state, to pass a law, or to amend the state constitution for the purpose of preventing her from marrying the person of her choice.

Does it offend your notions concerning the sanctity of marriage for a person like my sister to be married and divorced three times and making plans to enter a fourth marriage? Should you use the power of the state government to impose your views concerning marriage on my sister and other divorcees?

In the matter at issue, we are not talking about mere disagreement concerning an individual's choice for a marriage partner. This is a matter wherein you are IMPOSING your view on everyone else in society through the operation of our laws. We're talking about you and others like you who are abusing the power of the state government to prevent an entire class of people--homosexuals--from marrying the same-sex persons of their choice. What justification can you offer other than unacceptable homophobia for your abuse of the power of the state to assert your opposition to another person's choice for a marriage partner?

CoastalRat wrote:

I called a friend of mine last night. I did this because I wanted the opinion of someone who has a dog in this fight. She is the daughter of a former neighber of mine who happened to be a rather involved figure in the fight for gay "rights." She herself is a lesbian and has been with her partner for more than 15 years. I've known her for nearly 35 years, ever since she was a young child. After being called a bigot by many on here, I wanted her honest opinion and knew she would give it to me, after all she has never held back any punches when we have discussed gay issues in the past.

Anyway, it seems she does not believe I am a bigot for holding beliefs that are different than hers. In fact, she doesn't think I hold my beliefs out of any fear either. She does believe that I am a bit close-minded when it comes to gay marriage since she would like to marry her partner and believes that right should be available to her. But she tells me she understands why I disagree and respects that opinion.

We had a good conversation, as we always do, and said our goodbyes without resorting to namecalling and such which is quite frankly counterproductive regardless of which side of this issue you stand.

BTW, like McG, I have no issue at all with civil unions which will grant all the benefits of marriage, even though I do have concerns about children growing up in homes without a mother and a father.


How noble of you, Coastal Rat, to personally telephone your "friend" and explain to her why you're OPPOSED her choice of marriage partner and why you choose to abuse the power of the state to prevent her from exercising the right to marry the person of her choice. The fact that she treated you with respect while you maligned her sexuality and degraded her choice must have been very comforting to you. Did you also tell her, although you disagreed with her choice, that she was free to make it? Apparently not.

Woiyo9
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 May, 2009 10:26 am
Quote:
How noble of you, Coastal Rat, to personally telephone your "friend" and explain to her why you're OPPOSED her choice of marriage partner and why you choose to abuse the power of the state to prevent her from exercising the right to marry the person of her choice. The fact that she treated you with respect while you maligned her sexuality and degraded her choice must have been very comforting to you. Did you also tell her, although you disagreed with her choice, that she was free to make it? Apparently not.


You obnoxious little twit!!!!

How exactly did Coastal "abuse the power of the State" when he discussed his point of view with his friend?

This is what is wrong with you "pinheads" who feel their point of view is superior to others.

Seems to me Coastal has a higher level of maturity than all you knuckleheads since he is still able to be friends with someone who he has a "different point of view".

Grow Up D-Law.
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 May, 2009 10:27 am

The History of Marriage as an Institution
by Larry R. Peterson, Ph.D
(c)1997, Larry R. Peterson

Virtually all scholars agree that we have witnessed a major transition in the meaning of marriage in the years from 1600 to 1995. In 1600, marriage for almost all Europeans and Europeans in America was primarily an economic arrangement negotiated between families in which family considerations of status, future economic stability, and prosperity were the most important considerations in selecting a potential spouse. By1995, most Americans consider the primary purpose of marriage to be a commitment to emotional and psychological support between two individuals.

Here are hisorical notations about some of the dramatic changes in the legal structure of marriage in Western Europe and the United States.

From the 5th to the 14th centuries, the Roman Catholic Church conducted special ceremonies to bless same-sex unions which were almost identical for those to bless heterosexual unions. At the very least, these were spiritual, if not sexual, unions.

In 1076, Pope Alexander II issued a decree prohibiting marriages between couples who were more closely related than 6th cousins.

In the 16th century, servants and day laborers were not allowed to marry in Bavaria and Austria unless they had the permission of local political authorities. This law was not finally abolished in Austria until 1921.

From the 1690s to the 1870s, "wife sale" was common in rural and small-town England. To divorce his wife, a husband could present her with a rope around her neck in a public sale to another man.

Marriage was strictly a civil and not an ecclesiastical ceremony for the Puritans in Massachusetts Bay until 1686.

The Pilgrims outlawed courtship of a daughter or a female servant unless consent was first obtained from parents or master.

Until 1662, there was no penalty for interracial marriages in any of the British colonies in North America. In 1662, Virginia doubled the fine for fornication between interracial couples. In 1664, Maryland became the first colony to ban interracial marriages. By 1750, all southern colonies, plus Massachusetts and Pennsylvania outlawed interracial marriages.

Under English common law, and in all American colonies and states until the middle of the 19th century, married women had no legal standing. They could not own property, sign contracts, or legally control any wages they might earn.

In 1848, New York became the first state to pass a Married Woman's Property Act, guaranteeing the right of married women to own property.

Throughout most of the 19th century, the minimum age of consent for sexual intercourse in most American states was 10 years. In Delaware it was only 7 years.

As late as 1930, twelve states allowed boys as young as 14 and girls as young as 12 to marry (with parental consent).

As late as 1940, married women were not allowed to make a legal contract in twelve states.

In 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down state anti-miscegenation laws in Loving v. Virginia. As a result of the decision, Virginia and fifteen other states had their anti-miscegenation laws declared unconstitutional. Those states were: Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and West Virginia.

In the fifteen years prior to the decision, fourteen states had repealed their anti-miscegenation laws. Those fourteen states were: Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Indiana, Maryland, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming.

In 1978, New York became the first state to outlaw rape in marriage. By 1990, only a total of ten states outlawed rape in marriage. In thirty-six states rape in marriage was a crime only in certain circumstances. In four states, rape in marriage was never a crime.

These examples, and there are more, clearly document that marriage has not been an unchanging institution with unchanging definitions of who can marry and under what circumstances. Those who claim otherwise distort the historical record.

Footnotes
# Edward Shorter, The Making of the Modern Family, (New York: Basic Books, 1975)
# Carl N. Degler, At Odds: Women and the Family in America from the Revolution to the Present, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1980)
# Michael Mitterauer and Reinhard Sieder, The European Family: Patriarchy to Partnership from the Middle Ages to the Present (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982)
# Steven Mintz and Susan Kellogg, Domestic Revolutions: A Social History of American Family Life, (New York: MacMillan, 1988)
# John D'Emilio and Estelle B. Freedman, Intimate Matters: A History of Sexuality in America, (New York: Harper & Row, 1988)
# John Boswell, Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe, (New York: Villard Books, 1994)
# Jack Goody, The Development of the Family and Marriage in Europe, (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1983) pp. 136-138
# Mitterauer and Sieder, p. 123
# John R. Gillis, For Better, For Worse: British Marriages, 1600 to the Present, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1985) pp. 211-217
# Edmund S. Morgan, The Puritan Family: Religion and Domestic Relations in Seventeenth Century New England. rev. ed. (New York: Harper & Row, 1966) p. 32
# John Demos, A Little Commonwealth: Family Life in Plymouth Colony, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1970) p. 154
# D'Emilio and Freedman, pp. 34-36
# Sara M. Evans, Born for Liberty: A History of Women in America, (New York: Free Press, 1989), p. 22.
# Evans, p. 94
# Morton Keller, Affairs of State: Public Life in Late Nineteenth Century America. (Cambridge, MA.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1977), p. 465
# Mintz and Kellogg, p. 126
# Degler, p. 333
# Loving v. Virginia, 388 US 1, 18 L ed 2d, United States Supreme Court Reports, October Term, 1966, Lawyers' Edition, Second Series, Volume 18 (Rochester, N.Y.: Lawyers Cooperative Publishing Company, 1968) p.1014n.
# Jane Sherron De Hart and Linda K. Kerber, "Gender and The New Women's History," in Linda K. Kerber and Jane Sherron De Hart, eds. Women's America: Refocusing the Past, 4th ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995) p. 13

Article (c) 1997, Larry R. Peterson, Ph.D.
Larry R. Peterson is a full professor, chairs the Dept. of History, and may be reached at: Minard Hall 412J, Box 5075, North Dakota State University, Fargo, North Dakota 58105-5075
0 Replies
 
CoastalRat
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 May, 2009 10:28 am
@Debra Law,
Debra, kindly take your opinion of the content of the conversation with my friend and shove it up yours. I brought up the conversation for the purpose of showing that the namecalling and such going on in this thread is not shared by a portion of the gay community that, unbelievably to some of you I am sure, recognize that there can really be a difference of opinion without the hatred that some of you seem to like injecting. Nothing more. My call was made from a desire to know whether in our conversations over the years she believed me to be bigoted or prejudiced against her chosen lifestyle. I have other friends I could have called. I did not because I know that based on our relationship I would get an honest answer from her.

Feel free to argue my beliefs, but don't think you know a whit about my relationship with this woman to even imagine my or her subsequent thoughts about our conversation.

So take your superior attitude and stick it elsewhere.

Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 May, 2009 10:30 am
@CoastalRat,
Thanks for your statement of absolutely purity, that you have never sinned and if you were to confess a sin, I would have the right to judge you and remind you of your shame according to me. What church does a clown preside over?
Woiyo9
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 May, 2009 10:32 am
@Lightwizard,
Another asshole heard from!!!!!

You all sound like 5 year olds who can't get their way.

0 Replies
 
CoastalRat
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 May, 2009 10:33 am
@Lightwizard,
I made no such statement. But feel free to pretend otherwise if it makes you feel superior. I have no problems with that at all.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Prop 8?
  3. » Page 85
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/13/2021 at 01:21:43