Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Statement by the President on Marriage (MUST READ -- Dean/Kerry/Clark Statements Follow)
The White House ^ | Nov 18, 2003 | President Bush

Posted on 11/18/2003 3:02:45 PM PST by PhiKapMom

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 301-310 next last
To: MeeknMing
In fact, I'm quite unhappy about the FAGACHUSSETTS ruling.

It wouldn't surprise me if people start vandalizing road signs, blotting out or otherwise obscuring the first letter in "Massachussetts". Not that I advocate any such thing -- it's juvenile and criminal. I'm just saying it wouldn't surprise me.

151 posted on 11/18/2003 5:34:45 PM PST by TrappedInLiberalHell (Do Muslim androids dream of electric goats?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: spodefly
".....They have never made any comments regarding their sexuality or any comments related to the homosexual agenda. .......... As repulsed as I am by homosexuality in general, I never once felt that when thinking about my aunts....."

Since they never talked about it how do you know they were Lesbians? Whatever happened to two spinsters who just never married because men didn't find them to their suiting or for some other reason they never married but not because of them being homosexual.

If your Aunt had made up a will she could have left whatever she had to whom ever she wanted.

Homosexuals already have all the same rights that heterolsexuals have. The only right they do not have is to change the diffination of marriage. They are not fighting for the right to have the ability to have spousel insurance or medical previlages etc, etc, they can have all that.

They just want to change the whole meaning of marriage as between a man and a women.

152 posted on 11/18/2003 5:41:18 PM PST by Spunky (This little tag just keeps following me where ever I go.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: jde1953
If you truly believe that marriage is a sacred institution, and are using "sacred" in the sense of religious (rather than just "worthy of respect") then it follows that:

a) the government should not issue marriage licenses--that is unwarranted meddling in religion.

That is a logical conclusion. It's fair for the state to require registration after the fact, for legal record-keeping, tax purposes, etc., but it's wrong for the government to pretend to be God and grant or withhold permission by "licensing" marriages. No license is required to start a newspaper or print a book; surely marriage is at least as fundamental a human right.

b) any "marriage" performed at the county courthouse without benefit of clergy is null and void.

Only if the religion claims exclusive right to preside over the ceremony. That's certainly not the case of Christianity (the Bible records several marriages performed without clergy: e.g. Issac's marriage to Rebecca (Gen. 24:67), some Christians' mistaken views to the contrary notwithstanding.

c) there should be no such thing as legal marriage between two atheists.

Again, only if the religion claims such; which Christianity does not. The only restrictions of this sort that the Bible places on marriage is that Christians may not marry outside the faith.

d) there should be no such thing as legal marriage, period, since it is a matter of religion rather than secular law.

Again, only if the particular religion says the state has no right to recognize marriage legally, and there's nothing like that in the Bible. The state may, and should, add its recognition of marriage to the biblical one, but it may not legitimately supplant it, e.g., by requiring licenses.

153 posted on 11/18/2003 5:44:53 PM PST by Stop Legal Plunder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: TrappedInLiberalHell
I think that fidelity means even less in the "gay community." In my opinion as soon as the gay lobby gets the right to a marriage license, they will soon tire of the charade. But it was no fault divorce that killed marriage. A question to consider is whether middle-class values can survive without the nuclear family. The experience of the black community make this doubtful.
154 posted on 11/18/2003 5:45:02 PM PST by RobbyS (XP)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: MeeknMing
Bubba has lost weight except in his red bulbous nose.
155 posted on 11/18/2003 5:45:43 PM PST by Grampa Dave (George Soros, the Evil Daddy Warbucks, has owned the DemonicRats for decades!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: Wolfstar
"I was speaking of the more recent practice of actual government intrusion into such traditions, which occurred when governments began requiring licenses to get married."

More recent? And when might that have been?

156 posted on 11/18/2003 5:46:34 PM PST by Spunky (This little tag just keeps following me where ever I go.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: PhiKapMom
The democrats are trying to destroy the America we know and love and instill their own perverted ideas on us and our children and we must not let them get away with it.
157 posted on 11/18/2003 5:46:36 PM PST by b4its2late (Men are from earth. Women are from earth. Hillary's from hell. Deal with it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stop Legal Plunder
The state has the right to protect marriage which, after all, involves the joining of estates and concerns the rearing of children. The marriagce license is intended to certifying that each party is free to marry, that no other person has claim to either party.
158 posted on 11/18/2003 5:48:40 PM PST by RobbyS (XP)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: Wolfstar
After reading the several responses above from Dean, Kerry, Kennedy, Lieberman, et. al., I am struck by the fact that the Left suddenly believes in states rights! What a bunch of flaming hypocrites.

"Hypocricy is the tribute vice pays to virtue."

159 posted on 11/18/2003 5:48:56 PM PST by Stop Legal Plunder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: MeeknMing
Texas is Reublican --- Fagachusettes is run by democrat, proving that you get what you elect --- IOW --- the voters are reaping what they have sown.
160 posted on 11/18/2003 5:49:06 PM PST by onyx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: TrappedInLiberalHell
ditto
161 posted on 11/18/2003 5:51:38 PM PST by fiscally_right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Liz
Your #129 is spot on. Of course.
162 posted on 11/18/2003 5:52:25 PM PST by onyx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
This whole judgement is based on the flawed notion that marriage is just about love.

Actually, the whole issue is based on the decades long plan of homosexuals and their supporters to destroy the fabric of civilization so that they can feel comfortable in a sexual mayhem. I'm starting to think that the socialists/marxists are on the same page, as a morally destroyed society soon becomes totalitarian, since no one can control themselves any more, the government must step in.

163 posted on 11/18/2003 5:52:51 PM PST by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Indy Pendance
This Massachusetts decision, bad as it is, deals only with the civil side of marriage as promulgated by the state. It has nothing to do with the practices of any religion concerning marriage.

John / Billybob

164 posted on 11/18/2003 5:53:49 PM PST by Congressman Billybob (www.ArmorforCongress.com Visit. Join. Help. Please.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Angelus Errare
Ping
165 posted on 11/18/2003 5:55:01 PM PST by Green Knight (Looking forward to seeing Jeb stepping over Hillary's rotting political corpse in 2008.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: Liz
The dems are handing GW all of the gift packed winning issues that he wants.

The only problem is which few can he and the repubies spend the time and money to smash the libs at the polls.
166 posted on 11/18/2003 5:55:52 PM PST by Grampa Dave (George Soros, the Evil Daddy Warbucks, has owned the DemonicRats for decades!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: Liz
Bush needs to hand Dumbocrats a gift-wrapped package of dynamite wedge issues and Dummycrats anti-religionism -- showcased by big buck anti-Bush campaign donors George Soros and Norman Lear (the latter runs the religio-phobic People for The American Way) - is a good place to start ...

Excellent points !

Bush has played the 'RATS quite well for almost three years now. I look forward to his next FIVE in the White House ...

Entrapment by Bush:
He plays Democrats for fools,
and they always rise to his bait


The Rewards of Boldness

Bush and the art of Rope-a-Dope

"Somehow, Bush managed, once again, to do exactly what his critics wanted him to and defeat them entirely in the process."...This tactic has come to be known, by critics and admirers alike, as the "rope-a-dope" strategy...

Mark Steyn: No flies on Bush


167 posted on 11/18/2003 5:58:09 PM PST by MeekOneGOP (I won! I won! http://rmeek141.home.comcast.net/LotteryTicketRutRoh.JPG)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: steveegg
Keep us posted. He sounds like a great candidate for Total Recall II!
168 posted on 11/18/2003 5:58:59 PM PST by Grampa Dave (George Soros, the Evil Daddy Warbucks, has owned the DemonicRats for decades!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave
Will do.
169 posted on 11/18/2003 6:00:44 PM PST by steveegg (Wisconsin CCW? Since Craps Doyle vetoed, OVERRIDE and RECALL - countdown is now 42 days)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: spodefly
It was not allowed by law to be seen that way. That's the part that I have problems with.

Everything in life isn't always fair, just, equal or what seems right to someone. In fact, what seems right, fair and so on to one person or group of people, will usually seem the opposite to another person or group. That's just the way it is - some women are more beautiful, some men more handsome. Suppose your two "aunts" were not lesbians (as I assume you meant) but just very good friends who lived together platonically? Should there be a special law for them? Maybe the real culprit in this case is crapola probate laws, and estate tax laws.

170 posted on 11/18/2003 6:02:27 PM PST by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
Priests are generally notary publics who execute the marriage license. No government agency recognizes a "religious" ceremony.

Pastors and priests are witnesses, not notaries, to the marriage covenant that is executed between the husband and wife and God. That's why the most a pastor does is "pronounce" the two husband and wife. He doesn't make them so. They do, and what they start in the ceremony they must subsequently consummate in order to complete. So while this is such thing as a religious wedding ceremony that the government recognizes, the pastor doesn't marry anyone.

The institution of marriage is the model we use to raise children.

Parents raise children, not "we" the village.

If government is removed from marriage, then government must be removed from all issues of all forms of property since marriage follows inheritances and property interests.

The state should record and recognise these interests (in order to punish criminal actions such as theft), but I agree that it should not meddle with and constrain them to the extent it does.

171 posted on 11/18/2003 6:03:14 PM PST by Stop Legal Plunder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: NutCrackerBoy
Incompatible goals. We have to realize that it is not an equal protection issue.

Bingo. Its like the old saying: If my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle. Marriage is defined as a union between a man and a women. Much like a female sibling is a sister, not a brother - its a definition, and not subject to change.

172 posted on 11/18/2003 6:03:44 PM PST by Go Gordon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob; logos
If this decision passes, and gays are allowed to marry, watch how the church rulings are handled. If gays want a religious cermony, which the church might refuse based upon their doctrines, there will be lawsuits. If a church refuses to marry gays based upon their doctrines, the state will step in and rule on their decision based upon their constitutional laws. And it will be ruled in favor of gays, because the state constitution says so. This will be a fight about the constitutionality of our country's first amendment. This is a bad day for Americans. Unless we can rid our country of activist judges, our country will morph into another country.

Our founding fathers be so happy. /sacrasm
173 posted on 11/18/2003 6:08:46 PM PST by Indy Pendance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: TrappedInLiberalHell
If I had to choose, I'd much prefer married gay people to gays that slept around.

If they need a piece of paper to keep their promised commitment to each other, is it worth the fight? 99.9% of gay couples in committed relationships don't last. Its the gay life style.

BTW, is Taxachussetts an alimony state? see how quickly gays don't get married when they start experiencing alimony payments. The tough part will be the judges job of selecting which one wore the pants in the relationship.

174 posted on 11/18/2003 6:10:05 PM PST by Go Gordon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: maica; Congressman Billybob
I think the word 'sanctity' is used to elevate concept of the 'union' of one man and one woman to a new entity. You might say that marriages are 'blessed' by the community in which the two entrants live. This has been the custom in every successful society.

Close. The institution of marriage is called "sacred" because it was instituted by God. The household was the first government, predating both the church and the state. The latter two were created by God in addition to marriage after the fall of man into sin. Each of these governments has its own areas of responsibility and its own limits ordained by God.

The present dispute over homosexual marriage is as fierce as it is in part because one sphere of government (the state) is making a massive power grab from another sphere of government (the family).

175 posted on 11/18/2003 6:11:46 PM PST by Stop Legal Plunder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Theo
Perhaps you're playing loose with ther term "traditional marriage" to include what's practiced in some cultures not influenced by Christianity?

I'm making the point that even in polygamous cultures, a man marries only women, and one at a time.

176 posted on 11/18/2003 6:13:58 PM PST by Jim Noble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave
Do you mean the Red Neck Gay Metro Sexual Confederate Voter is what Metro Sexual Howie is targeting.

Yes, I can see it now. Dean is invited to the wedding of Patrick Fitzmorris and Morris Fitzpatrick (sorry, couldn't resist this old punchline).

177 posted on 11/18/2003 6:14:45 PM PST by Go Gordon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: B Knotts
You don't like one or more of those elements, I take it?

By no means.

Traditional marriage has already been destroyed, by heterosexuals, for heterosexuals.

The gays are just getting in on the party near its end.

Restoration is going to be much more of a project that the "traditional marriage amendment" crowd thinks-because limiting marriage to men and women while allowing unilateral divorce and penalty-free adultery restores nothing.

178 posted on 11/18/2003 6:17:19 PM PST by Jim Noble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: PhiKapMom
This is not only a winning issue for Republicans but Republicans are on the right side of this issue IMHO.

...and should use it as an example of why we need to get conservative judges confirmed. Make it a HUGE issue.

179 posted on 11/18/2003 6:18:12 PM PST by Go Gordon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
The state has the right to protect marriage which, after all, involves the joining of estates and concerns the rearing of children. The marriage license is intended to certifying that each party is free to marry, that no other person has claim to either party.

There's an old saying: "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" That may be an overstatement, but it makes the point.

Most government programs (e.g. social security) are started with good intentions, but their merit is better judged by their consequences. Marriages licenses are wrong because they require men and women to get state permission to marry, which is presumptuous. The proper way to deal with fraudulent marriages is to punish offenders severely (e.g. large fines) when they record the marriages.

180 posted on 11/18/2003 6:18:54 PM PST by Stop Legal Plunder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: shrinkermd
Socrates was born in 469 B.C.; Plato was born in 427 B.C.

While there may be passages in Plato which imply acceptance of pederasty, in his last work, The Laws, he speaks as if he considers homosexuality to be contrary to nature. For example:

However, God willing, perhaps we'll succeed in imposing one or other of two standards of sexual conduct. (1) Ideally, no one will dare to have relations with any respectable citizen woman except his own wedded wife, or sow illegitimate and bastard seed in courtesans, or sterile seed in males in defiance of nature. (2) Alternatively, while suppressing sodomy entirely, we might insist that if a man does have intercourse with any woman (hired or procured in some other way) except the wife he wed in holy marriage with the blessing of the gods, he must do so without any other man or woman getting to know about it. (Translated by Trevor J. Saunders)

181 posted on 11/18/2003 6:20:37 PM PST by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: AuH2ORepublican
There is something conservatives need to remember. Judges are only nominated by Presidents and Governors. It's the Senators (U.S. or state) who actually confirm them. If people want more conservatives on the bench, we need to get more conservatives elected to the Senate.
182 posted on 11/18/2003 6:21:47 PM PST by Clintonfatigued
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Theo
You have a point there. Last time I heard, it's wrong to cause a woman to die in an automobile accident through gross neglect and then lie about it.
183 posted on 11/18/2003 6:23:49 PM PST by Clintonfatigued
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Wolfstar
Joe Leiberman applauded this ruling?
184 posted on 11/18/2003 6:24:27 PM PST by Clintonfatigued
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Verginius Rufus
I meant to include a reference for the quotation from Plato's Laws. It's from Book VIII, 841c-e (page 1502 in the 1997 Hackett edition of Plato, Complete Works).
185 posted on 11/18/2003 6:24:57 PM PST by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: SunStar
Marriages in one state MUST be recognized by other states

It's that old Full Faith And Credit Clause, again! Pretty simple, eh?

But if this is so unassailable, how come my licence to carry a pistol in NC doesn't mean squat in NY or Massachusetts? In fact, I can get thrown in jail there for a felony by doing just that!

186 posted on 11/18/2003 6:25:09 PM PST by Gritty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: spodefly
She had a will, and I am sure her estate was pretty carefully crafted to minimize any grabs by the state. But, because the laws are designed to handle transfers from married couples and not non-married persons, there is a huge hit (so far as I understand it.)

I'm not persuaded. Your aunt either should have gotten a better lawyer or, more likely, should have started years earlier than she did, as effective estate planning (e.g. lowest possible tax hit) usually requires taking appropriate steps years in advance. And it is very possible to have a small tax hit even when one's heir is not part of the family.

187 posted on 11/18/2003 6:26:05 PM PST by Stop Legal Plunder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: TrappedInLiberalHell
Marriage is dying in this country. At the very least, it doesn't mean what it used to mean (an understatement).

So you want to put the last nail in the coffin by redefining it out of existence?

188 posted on 11/18/2003 6:29:51 PM PST by Stop Legal Plunder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: Clintonfatigued
In some states, judges are elected directly by the people.
189 posted on 11/18/2003 6:38:14 PM PST by Kuksool
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: COURAGE
Think what you like -- you're wrong however.

My point is that there are MANY things that the sanctity of marriage needs protecting against, and I consider ADULTERY (on God's Top Ten list) to be a greater problem than homosexuality.
190 posted on 11/18/2003 6:40:40 PM PST by armadale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: TrappedInLiberalHell
LOL ! I hadn't thought about it, but that wouldn't be surprising. ha! ha!

Maybe the State will make a pre-emptive move ... put up their own signs ...

Welcome to Fagachussetts ! < /bad humor > ...

quickly exits thread ...


191 posted on 11/18/2003 6:47:31 PM PST by MeekOneGOP (I won! I won! http://rmeek141.home.comcast.net/LotteryTicketRutRoh.JPG)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: onyx
Texas is Republican --- Fagachusettes is run by democrat, proving that you
get what you elect --- IOW --- the voters are reaping what they have sown.

Amen !!


192 posted on 11/18/2003 6:51:33 PM PST by MeekOneGOP (I won! I won! http://rmeek141.home.comcast.net/LotteryTicketRutRoh.JPG)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: armadale
My point is that there are MANY things that the sanctity of marriage needs protecting against, and I consider ADULTERY (on God's Top Ten list) to be a greater problem than homosexuality

The historical Christian interpretation is that all sexual sins are prohibited by the commandment against adultery.

In that context, heterosexual unfaithfulness is the natural predecessor to homosexual unfaithfulness. So our country needs to repent of the former while not ignoring the additonal threat posed by the latter.

193 posted on 11/18/2003 6:51:40 PM PST by Stop Legal Plunder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: Kuksool
Good point. If U.S. Supreme Court judges were elected, we might not have had some of the bad rulings they're known for.
194 posted on 11/18/2003 6:56:33 PM PST by Clintonfatigued
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: PhiKapMom
Watch what they Do,Not what they said
195 posted on 11/18/2003 7:04:59 PM PST by freetradenotfree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PhiKapMom
I will work with congressional leaders and others to do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage.

It is necessary to impeach and remove judges to defend the sanctity of marriage. They will never stop unless they are stopped.

196 posted on 11/18/2003 7:06:16 PM PST by af_vet_1981
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
From an email that I sent today...

Question:

Shouldn't something like this be decided by the voters and their elected representatives-- and not some unaccountable black-robed elite?

Lay aside my own personal religious feelings-- and the inexplicable knot in my stomach. Lay aside my objections to the hubris of moderns rejecting what millennia of human evolution and relationships have taught us.

Let's talk about the civics of this case... We have a bunch of unaccountable elites in this nation ramming through legislation from the bench--- and whatever the overwhelming majority of the voters want be dammed. How is it that our jurists waited over two centuries before "discovering" that gay marriage is a constitutional right?

Why can't I marry my brother? Shoot-- if you buy the arguments that people are making-- what difference does it make if we won't be producing children? We love each other and have a lifelong commitment to each other. And who are YOU to tell us that it is wrong by imposing your morality on us? Why does the institution of marriage really exist?

Ladies and Gentleman, this is just one more stop down the slippery slope. If you refrain from making moral judgements, then anything can and will go. Why not legalize bestiality? Why not legalize consensual incest? Please give me a compelling argument against these measures shorn of moral judgements.

Frankly, the Massachusetts legislature should imeach the whole bally lot of these high handed usurpers. However, since the People's Republic of Massachusetts is under the iron hand of the Perjury Party--which dares not offend its core special interest groups-- forget it.

End of rant.

--Lysandru

197 posted on 11/18/2003 7:15:29 PM PST by Lysandru
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: All
Right now!

10pm On Fire! with Tom Adkins
Guest: Bernard Goldberg, Author
BERNARD GOLDBERG was a CBS News correspondent for twenty-eight years and is the winner of seven Emmy Awards, six at CBS and one for his work at HBO's critically acclaimed Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel. At CBS News, Goldberg covered stories all over America and much of the world for the CBS Evening News and 48 Hours. He also brought his unique perspective to the news in a special CBS Evening News segment, "Bernard Goldberg's America."

ON AIR
 
Click the ON AIR sign or here at broadcast time to start listening live!

198 posted on 11/18/2003 7:36:00 PM PST by agitator (Ok, mic check...line one...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]

To: Semper911
This alone could get you four more years.

I appreciate your sentiments but I'm old enough to realize though that ones actions do usually speak louder than your words alone. I'll be awaiting to see if Bush does more than just offer right sounding words. His actions will tell me more about how concerned and committed he really is.

199 posted on 11/18/2003 7:37:45 PM PST by Ron H. (I'm a RLCTX.net Conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob
Wish I could have heard that exchange. Your following comment was well stated and IMHO it says it all:

"Further, I said that President Bush will support this amendment, and all the Democrat candidates will be forced to oppose it, with the result of putting the Democrat nominee -- whoever it is -- further behind the political eight-ball."
200 posted on 11/18/2003 7:40:19 PM PST by PhiKapMom (AOII Mom -- Don't forget to Visit/donate at http://www.georgewbush.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 301-310 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson