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

Skip to comments.

Bush for Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriage-Source
Reuters ^

Posted on 02/19/2004 10:11:50 AM PST by The G Man



Feb 19, 11:54 AM (ET)

By Alan Elsner

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush's political director has told a group of prominent conservatives that the president would soon publicly endorse a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

Bay Buchanan, sister of former Republican presidential candidate Pat Buchanan, told Reuters she was one of several conservatives who heard the message from political director Karl Rove two weeks ago.

"We were told by Karl Rove that the president would support the constitutional amendment -- not just that he would endorse it but also that he would fight for it," Buchanan said.

Specifically, Rove told the alliance of conservatives known as the Arlington Group in a telephone conversation that Bush would back the amendment being put forward by Colorado Republican Rep. Marilyn Musgrave and that his statement would come "sooner rather than later."

The proposed amendment would reserve marriages solely for "unions between a man and a woman." It would allow state voters and legislatures to determine if they want to legalize civil unions between same-sex couples but would state that no court can require states to accept such civil unions.

Buchanan said she and colleagues were a little concerned that Bush had not yet spoken out in favor of the amendment.

"We had expected it by now. There have been several opportunities for the president to speak out since that time. We're not sure what he's waiting for," she said.

In his latest comment on the issue, Bush said on Wednesday he was troubled San Francisco was issuing marriage licenses to gays and lesbians "even though the law states otherwise."

"I'm troubled by what I've seen," Bush told reporters in his first public comments on the flood of City Hall weddings that have made San Francisco the focus of the gay marriage movement.

"I have consistently stated that I'll support (a) law to protect marriage between a man and a woman. And, obviously, these events are influencing my decision," Bush said.

Amending the constitution is a difficult task. It can take years to win the support of two-thirds of the House of Representatives, two-thirds of the Senate and ratification by three-quarters of the states.

But conservatives have made the constitutional amendment a litmus test for Bush. Democratic presidential front-runner John Kerry, says he favors civil unions for gays but not marriage.



TOPICS: Breaking News; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: arlingtongroup; bush43; fma; gay; homosexual; homosexualagenda; marriage; marriageammendment; prisoners; samesexmarriage
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-146 next last

1 posted on 02/19/2004 10:11:51 AM PST by The G Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: The G Man
THE Wedge issue. Can't see how this can hurt Bush or help any 'rat that gets in the way.
2 posted on 02/19/2004 10:13:11 AM PST by Semper Paratus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The G Man
Obvious hot issue and dup post.
3 posted on 02/19/2004 10:13:43 AM PST by RightWhale (Repeal the law of the excluded middle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The G Man
the source is Buchanan's sister? I think I'll wait for official confirmation.
4 posted on 02/19/2004 10:14:03 AM PST by KantianBurke (Principles, not blind loyalty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The G Man
How about a Constitutional ban on activist judges making up new "rights".
5 posted on 02/19/2004 10:14:18 AM PST by rhombus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The G Man
"unions between a man and a woman."

Does it define "man" and "woman"?

6 posted on 02/19/2004 10:14:44 AM PST by GraniteStateConservative ("You can dip a pecan in gold, but it's still a pecan"-- Deep Thoughts by JC Watts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The G Man
I've said it before and I'll say it again: I don't support Bush on this. The Constitution should not be amended over the definition of marriage.
7 posted on 02/19/2004 10:14:47 AM PST by conserv13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The G Man
But conservatives have made the constitutional amendment a litmus test for Bush.

I know I have. I hope this news is true, but I've got to hear it straight from him to believe it.

8 posted on 02/19/2004 10:15:40 AM PST by King Black Robe (With freedom of religion and speech now abridged, it is time to go after the press.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
Ping


What We Can Do To Help Defeat the "Gay" Agenda


Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links (Version 1.1)

9 posted on 02/19/2004 10:16:34 AM PST by EdReform (Support Free Republic - All donations are greatly appreciated. Thank you for your support!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
Shoot! I searched too!
10 posted on 02/19/2004 10:17:04 AM PST by The G Man (John Kerry? America just can't afford a 9/10 President in a 9/11 world. Vote Bush-Cheny '04.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Semper Paratus
It's a good issue to fight the RATS on ....the public is against gay marriages..

according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll. According to the survey, 61 percent said no when asked whether gay marriages should be recognized as valid by law. Thirty-five percent said yes.

11 posted on 02/19/2004 10:19:21 AM PST by Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Comment #12 Removed by Moderator

To: Dog
It's a good issue to fight the RATS on ....the public is against gay marriages...

What percent of the public wants to put that into the Constitution of the United States of America? Think about two other recent amendments: Prohibition and Income Tax.

13 posted on 02/19/2004 10:24:58 AM PST by conserv13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: GraniteStateConservative
Does it define "man" and "woman"?

You know, those terms have taken on so much cultural baggage since Adam and Eve, especially the last 2 thousand years of western thought that we have lost sight of God's original intentions when he created Eve.

He didn't create Eve to be a reproductive partner, he created Eve to be a "helpmate". A helpmate can be either male or female. We need to bring social justice to bear on the defintion of men and women lest we begin to turn the clock back slavery. </ revisionist>

14 posted on 02/19/2004 10:26:10 AM PST by VRWC_minion (Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and most are right)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: conserv13
I've said it before and I'll say it again: I don't support Bush on this. The Constitution should not be amended over the definition of marriage.

I agress, at the federal level a marriage amendment is unwise; what is needed is the Constitution Restoration Act of 2004 (S. 2082), which was introduced last week and co-sponsored by Senator Zell Miller.

15 posted on 02/19/2004 10:26:52 AM PST by jgrubbs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: conserv13
The Constitution should not be amended over the definition of marriage.

It didn't need to be amended to make slavery illegal either.

16 posted on 02/19/2004 10:27:29 AM PST by VRWC_minion (Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and most are right)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: The G Man
I don't really care what the President has said --what I
wait to see is a Federal Congress affirming the Marriage Amendment precisely as drafted and proposed by Rep.Musgrave
and Senator Allard and sent directly to the States for
ratification. Only after this has been recieved and ratified
by the States will the caphony from the queer nation ebb.
17 posted on 02/19/2004 10:27:35 AM PST by StonyBurk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The G Man
Told ya so. Bush is too smart to avoid taking a clear stand on this issue.
18 posted on 02/19/2004 10:28:41 AM PST by LS (CNN is the Amtrack of news.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The G Man
Just seconds apart. A hot topic.
19 posted on 02/19/2004 10:30:41 AM PST by RightWhale (Repeal the law of the excluded middle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Dog
Watch for the media to indundate the airwaves with anecdotal stories of "love" and hardship for homosexual couples in response to this. Look further for an emphasis on homosexuals raising (indoctrinating) children.

Not one story will be about the mental problems of children of homosexual couples.

The left's total arguments will be founded on some form of "feeeeeelings".
20 posted on 02/19/2004 10:31:43 AM PST by longtermmemmory (Vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: GraniteStateConservative
Well In 1885 the Federal Court declared in Murphy v. Ramsey
that marriage was defined as "Consisting in and springing from that union for life of one man an done woman in the Holy estate of matrimony."Now Science has identified what
genetic markers identify a man and a woman and can with reasonable accuracy determine form th ewomb to the tomb and beyond if a specimin came from a male or female. All
attempts to disguise what the Creator has given aside-
for appearance can decieve.
21 posted on 02/19/2004 10:32:16 AM PST by StonyBurk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: conserv13
I agree. This ban on gay marriage can easily be done on the State level or in Congress. I do believe that certain legal protection should be extended to gay and lesbian unions.

Using a Constitutional amendment for special interest will only trivialize the importance of the Constitution. Next thing you know, every special interest group will be lobbying the President for their "important" amendment to the Constitution.
22 posted on 02/19/2004 10:34:37 AM PST by Fishing-guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: The G Man
Bush won't waffle on this one.
23 posted on 02/19/2004 10:34:41 AM PST by international american (Support our troops........................................revoke Hillary's visa!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conserv13
Then exactly how would you propose resolving the issue that
activist Judges continue to violate the clear language and
intent of the US Constitution.Are you an assasine,with
plans to take out the threat? Are you an anarchist who
would not support any Law? What do you propose?
24 posted on 02/19/2004 10:35:19 AM PST by StonyBurk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: GraniteStateConservative
And you just KNOW that's where the parsing of words will be debated. Hell, if you can throw out a law because of a semi colon, why not challenge the definition of what a man or a woman is?
25 posted on 02/19/2004 10:37:30 AM PST by rintense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: The G Man
When Bush says it and uses his political muscle to push it then I'll be happy. As Toby Keith says, a Little Less Talk and a LOT MORE ACTION
26 posted on 02/19/2004 10:39:38 AM PST by TheEaglehasLanded
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
It HAS to become a federal law. Period. If left up to states, there would be far too may lawsuits between states that would not recognize a marriage from another state. It would end up in the hands of judges.

And I'd rather have this decided by the American people, not judges.

27 posted on 02/19/2004 10:40:06 AM PST by rintense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: conserv13
When liberal judges rewrite the Constitution with words that aren't there, we have to amend the Constitution to put words that are there to fix it, or else we live under a judicial tyranny.
28 posted on 02/19/2004 10:42:20 AM PST by tomahawk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: The G Man
Kinda spiteful of Bush to prevent his VP's daughter from settling down with her significant other.
29 posted on 02/19/2004 10:44:13 AM PST by DonQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fishing-guy
This ban on gay marriage can easily be done on the State level or in Congress.

Exactly wrong. The courts are out of control. Constitutions and laws mean nothing to them when they have room to wiggle.

There are three ways to rein them in, impeach them, order them to leave marraige and abortion alone, or by a crisp , clear Constitutional Amendment.

The only one politically possible is an amendment.

Marriage has to be constitutionally defined in any case because when if indivdual states allow marriage outside of one man, one woman the feds have IRS, SS and medicare and medicaid issues revolving around who is married to whom.

An amendment is required, no doubt about it.

30 posted on 02/19/2004 10:45:36 AM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Semper Paratus
Can't see how this can hurt Bush

I can see how it will kill Bush -- "He won't fight to get spending under control, but he'll fight for this sideshow?!?"

31 posted on 02/19/2004 10:48:11 AM PST by steve-b
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Fishing-guy
I respect your love for the Constitution, but here are two questions for you, or for any other conservative who opposes a constitutional amendment:

Suppose gay marriage becomes the law in one state, let's say Massachusetts. Shortly thereafter, we start hearing sob stories from Katie Couric and Oprah on daily television about how these oppressed gay married couples are "prisoners" in the state of Massachusetts. We'll see Brucie from Boston on TV explaining that he had a wonderful job offer in Dallas, but couldn't accept it because his "husband" isn't legally recognized in Texas. We'll see Brunhilda from Worcester explaining that her plans to pursue an advanced degree at Northwestern University had to be dropped because her "wife" couldn't go with her to Illinois with the same legal recognition and protections.

And, of course, Brucie and Brunhilda will file lawsuits under the 14th amendment equal protection clause, and likely will win at the Supreme Court.

A) How do you stop that from happening?

B) Which would you prefer: A real, legitimately ratified constitutional amendment either banning gay marriage or leaving the issue up to the states, or a judicially created national right to gay marriage, imposed by fiat on the states by the federal courts?
32 posted on 02/19/2004 10:49:29 AM PST by puroresu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Semper Paratus
This is a no-brainer for Bush. A constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage IN CALIFORNIA passed here with nearly a 2/3 majority. If gay marriage is that unacceptable here, then what about "fly-over" country? The idiot rats in the Bay Area and Massachusetts have handed Bush a winning issue on a silver platter.
33 posted on 02/19/2004 10:49:32 AM PST by Redcloak (This tagline is for external use only. Discontinue if a rash develops. Induce vomiting if swallowed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Fishing-guy

First Amendment - Religion and Expression
Second Amendment - Bearing Arms
Third Amendment - Quartering Soldiers
Fourth Amendment - Search and Seizure
Fifth Amendment - Rights of Persons
Sixth Amendment - Rights of Accused in Criminal Prosecutions
Seventh Amendment - Civil Trials
Eighth Amendment - Further Guarantees in Criminal Cases
Ninth Amendment - Unenumerated Rights
Tenth Amendment - Reserved Powers
Eleventh Amendment - Suits Against States
Twelfth Amendment - Election of President
Thirteenth Amendment - Slavery and Involuntary Servitude
Fourteenth Amendment - Rights Guaranteed, Privileges and Immunities of Citizenship, Due Process and Equal Protection
Fifteenth Amendment - Rights of Citizens to Vote
Sixteenth Amendment - Income Tax
Seventeenth Amendment - Popular Election of Senators
Eighteenth Amendment - Prohibition of Intoxicating Liquors
Nineteenth Amendment - Woman's Suffrage Rights
Twentieth Amendment - Commencement of the Terms of the President, Vice President and Members of Congress.
Twenty-First Amendment - Repeal of the Eighteenth Amendment
Twenty-Second Amendment - Presidential Tenure
Twenty-Third Amendment - Presidential Electors for the District of Columbia
Twenty-Fourth Amendment - Abolition of the Poll Tax Qualification in Federal Elections
Twenty-Fifth Amendment - Presidential Vacancy, Disability, and Inability
Twenty-Sixth Amendment - Reduction of Voting Age Qualification
Twenty-Seventh Amendment - Congressional Pay Limitation

All after the tenth were beratted as trivializing the constitution. Marriage is now a federal issue. No amount of wishful thinking can change that.

Voting age could have been achieved by law, congressional pay could have been done by law. All at some point were said to be able to be done by a state or fed law.

Homosexuals already have the ability to "protect". They can enter into cohabitation agreements. It has always existed. This is not about protection. Protection is a BStreisand argument. This is about recieving a public sanction of their private sexual behavior. How someone pops an orgasm is not subject to sanction under the law.

The left should view this as separation of adult sexual behavior and state.

There is no reason for civil unions. There is no reason for any equivalency but for the "m" word.

Marriage is an institution for the raising and creating of children not for government sanction of feeeeeeelings.
34 posted on 02/19/2004 10:51:15 AM PST by longtermmemmory (Vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
I do believe that certain protection (like social security, insurance, etc.) should be given to gay unions.

If I remembered it correctly, every State in the Union has to approve the Constitution Amendment by 3/4 majority for it to pass. That is almost impossible now a day.
35 posted on 02/19/2004 10:51:57 AM PST by Fishing-guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: DonQ
"Kinda spiteful of Bush to prevent his VP's daughter from settling down with her significant other"

There's nothing preventing her from "settling down." She just can't get married ... unless she changes teams, that is.

36 posted on 02/19/2004 10:52:25 AM PST by The G Man (John Kerry? America just can't afford a 9/10 President in a 9/11 world. Vote Bush-Cheny '04.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: rintense
It HAS to become a federal law which only applies to states which doesn't recognize marriage.
37 posted on 02/19/2004 10:56:20 AM PST by VRWC_minion (Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and most are right)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

Monsieur John Kerry

I'm an internationalist. I'd like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations. - The Crimson 02/18/1970
"A bold progressive internationalism," Kerry. - JK Website

H.R. 3396 (Defense of Marriage Act) Kerry (D-MA), Nay
Signed the Letter Backing Gay Marriage - massequality.org 07/12/02

10. Would you support a congressional repeal of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy which would allow gay, lesbian, and bisexual soldiers the right to serve openly in the military as is currently the policy in nearly every NATO country.
KERRY: SUPPORT
Comments: In 1993, I was one of four Senators who testified before the Armed Services committee that it was fundamentally wrong to continue to deny gay and lesbian Americans the right of participate in the armed forces of the United States
hrc.org/2004 Presidential Questionnaire Responses

"Kerry indicated he might eventually back gay marriages if a public consensus developed for them," Brownstein Notes.
http://www.massinsider.com/archives/001261.phtml


38 posted on 02/19/2004 10:58:18 AM PST by KQQL (@)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fishing-guy
I do believe that certain protection (like social security, insurance, etc.) should be given to gay unions.

How about ungay unions? Polyamory unions? Platonic unions? Brothers and sisters?

If I remembered it correctly, every State in the Union has to approve the Constitution Amendment by 3/4 majority for it to pass. That is almost impossible now a day.

38 states have voted for DOMA, that is more than three quarters. The polls show a majority for constitutiional amendments in almost every state. Hawaii, a liberal state, amended their constitution when there judicial oligarch ruled that homosexual "marriage" was a right.

I think you underestimate the resonance of this issue.

39 posted on 02/19/2004 10:59:24 AM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Fishing-guy
Tell it to the elderly that homosexuals will be qualified to get senior citizens social security money for survivor benefits from their aids dead.

It EXTREMELY likely to pass. There are already 38 states with DOMA's who give every indication of passing the FMA. Two additional states are looking to pass constitutional doma's. GA comes to mind.

The Senate passed Federal DOMA in 1996 by 80%. Now with a republican majority it is probably even higher.

There are 8 sponsors in the senate and at last count 108 co-sponsors in the house.

This has a high pass probability.
40 posted on 02/19/2004 10:59:26 AM PST by longtermmemmory (Vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: KantianBurke
good idea
41 posted on 02/19/2004 11:01:24 AM PST by Robert_Paulson2 (hillary's running folks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: The G Man
A Federal amendment will be too late- soon, homosexual marriage will be a fact in Massachusetts; then there will be lots of homosexual marriages there, and some will go back to their home states and claim both "equal protection" and state reciprocity a la drivers licences (but not carry permits or fishing lics).

These will quickly be settled in activist courts.

By the time the feds get through the procedural steps, there will be thousands of married homosexuals and scores of court cases pro and con.

Assuming a Constitutional Amendment is ratified, what do you do with the many homosexual unions in existence?
42 posted on 02/19/2004 11:06:46 AM PST by DBrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
I have a question for Constitutionalists out there. When this Amendment is sent to the states for ratification, does it go to the legislatures? Which State house?, or does it go to the voters? I know that the governor doesn't have the say, but who does?

If it is different for each state, where can I find out how my state (Wisconsin), does it?

43 posted on 02/19/2004 11:11:14 AM PST by codercpc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
It didn't need to be amended to make slavery illegal either.

I think that the Constitution should be amended only in very extreme cases. The owning of certain human beings by others is such a case. I don't consider gay marriage to be all that important or a threat to this country.

44 posted on 02/19/2004 11:11:40 AM PST by conserv13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Semper Paratus
The dem/libs have asked for this. I can't see anyway this is going to benefit them. The country has made it clear that the majority does NOT support gay marriage. If the dems were smart they would leave this issue alone until after the election. Considering they have little in the way of a positive agenda I see the persuit of this by the dems as a "fool's" issue. In the long run I think they are shooting tmenselves in the foot...but...I say "bring it on".
45 posted on 02/19/2004 11:13:05 AM PST by mrtysmm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Fishing-guy
This ban on gay marriage can easily be done on the State level or in Congress.

I'm afraid this just won't work. The Supreme Court, as presently constituted, will decree homosexual marriage for the entire country. That's why we need a Constitutional amendment - there is no other way that I know of.

46 posted on 02/19/2004 11:17:39 AM PST by Zack Nguyen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: DBrow
It then reverts to the originating state to deal with it. It also becomes a non issue for federal law. No immigration based on homosexual marriage. No social security claims. (or survivor claims)
47 posted on 02/19/2004 11:19:23 AM PST by longtermmemmory (Vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: conserv13
I don't consider gay marriage to be all that important or a threat to this country.

I would strongly disagree. The enforced normalization of homosexual conduct, indeed it's exhultation to the same level as true marriage would be devastating. A generation would be raised up taught to see homosexual behavior as no different than normal human relationships. The idea of marriage as unique and special would be driven even further into the gutter. The homosexual lifestyle would be taught as normative in schools across the country. Marriage would no longer be considered necessary or important.

Finally, the idea of marriage being the most desirbale avenue for rearing children would be completely shot to hell. I have read about Scandinavia, in which homosexual marriage has more or less been a reality for ten years. The illegitimacy rate is over 50%. No one cares anymore whether you have kids while married or single, because marriage is no longer looked on as a necessary or important.

48 posted on 02/19/2004 11:25:24 AM PST by Zack Nguyen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Zack Nguyen
marriage is about children. Homosexuals are about sexual gratification. short and sweet.
49 posted on 02/19/2004 11:30:17 AM PST by longtermmemmory (Vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: conserv13
I think that the Constitution should be amended only in very extreme cases. The owning of certain human beings by others is such a case

The point is it didn't need to be amended for that. Its fine as it was.

50 posted on 02/19/2004 11:48:44 AM PST by VRWC_minion (Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and most are right)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-146 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