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

Skip to comments.

Same-sex marriage backers go to TV - New ads ask viewers to 'open hearts and minds' on the issue.
Sacramento Bee ^ | 10/8/7 | Jim Sanders

Posted on 10/08/2007 7:59:28 AM PDT by SmithL

Frustrated in efforts to legalize same-sex marriage through legislation or litigation, proponents will launch a multimillion-dollar advertising campaign this week to "open hearts and minds" in Sacramento and other major cities.

The 60-second ads will run in the capital, San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego and Palm Springs as part of a monthslong campaign to prod families to openly discuss same-sex marriage.

"The long-term goal is to have the majority of Californians support the freedom to marry -- to change the climate here," said Geoff Kors, executive director of Equality California, which is coordinating the campaign.

Benjamin Lopez, spokesman for the Traditional Values Coalition, which opposes same-sex marriage, called the effort "grasping at straws."

"This notion of a redefined marriage goes against the laws of God and against nature," he said.

The same TV spot will run in all five cities, beginning Thursday.

The ad depicts a traditional wedding, with an excited crowd, a flower girl tossing petals and a tuxedoed groom. As the bride walks down the aisle, she is tripped by a spectator and sprawls onto the floor. These words fill the screen:

"What if you couldn't marry the person you loved?"

Supplementing the TV campaign, thousands of volunteers are expected to participate in the multifaceted promotional push -- called "Let California Ring" -- by conducting house parties, knocking on voters' doors, giving speeches or assisting in e-mail or Web activities.

Legislation to permit same-sex marriage sits on the desk of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has vowed to veto it as he did a similar measure two years ago.

Schwarzenegger, in his previous veto message, cited a ballot initiative passed by voters in 2000 to limit marriage to a man and a woman.

(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; US: California
KEYWORDS: activistcourts; ads; culturewar; downourthroats; gaymarriage; homosexualagenda; inourfaces; moralabsolutes; playinghouse; samesexmarriage
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-74 next last
More TV trash that I won't be watching.
1 posted on 10/08/2007 7:59:34 AM PDT by SmithL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SmithL

And when that doesn’t work, they will ram it down our throats anyway...


2 posted on 10/08/2007 8:01:43 AM PDT by MaestroLC ("Let him who wants peace prepare for war."--Vegetius, A.D. Fourth Century)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

all california.

The GOP can use this to their advantage. But the GOP leadership is stuck on stupid.


3 posted on 10/08/2007 8:03:14 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Keep an open mind and someone will fill it with garbage...


4 posted on 10/08/2007 8:03:29 AM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

No one’s denying them the right to get married. They merely need to find someone of the opposite sex to wed.


5 posted on 10/08/2007 8:05:22 AM PDT by syriacus (''You sit down. You've had your say, and now I'm going to have my say.'' H Dean to an Iowan, 1/2004)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

This should be taught as a example of creeping incrementalism . Way back when government first started getting involved in regulating a sacred ritual this battle was as good as lost .


6 posted on 10/08/2007 8:06:15 AM PDT by kbennkc (For those who have fought for it , freedom has a flavor the protected will never know)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

“What if you couldn’t marry the person you loved?”

Well, they could still meet in outhouses to do what they like......


7 posted on 10/08/2007 8:07:06 AM PDT by Vn_survivor_67-68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
We are supposed to open our hearts and minds to this: http://michellemalkin.com/2007/10/05/miller-beer-filters-out-photos-of-its-own-company-sponsored-public-indecency/

and this: http://michellemalkin.com/2007/09/27/miller-beer-steps-in-it-again-the-folsom-street-fair-fiasco/

8 posted on 10/08/2007 8:08:28 AM PDT by 3AngelaD (They screwed up their own countries so bad they had to leave, and now they're here screwing up ours)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
"What if you couldn't marry the person you loved?" "

Call me dense, but how the heck does that relate to the video?

9 posted on 10/08/2007 8:08:40 AM PDT by Eastbound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
This is nothing more than to destroy marriage. Next will be legalizing polygamy and group marriage. Will marriage to a pet be far behind? Weakening marriage will greatly harm our society as can be concluded from the Russian experiment of the late 1930s and early 1940s.
10 posted on 10/08/2007 8:09:05 AM PDT by Dante3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dante3
Precisely. The goal is to destroy Western Civilization by any means necessary.

This issue is merely a means to an end.

11 posted on 10/08/2007 8:10:07 AM PDT by B Knotts (Tancredo '08!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Vn_survivor_67-68
“What if you couldn’t marry the person you loved?”

So what if the person happens to 'love' a 10-year-old? Should we make that legal just because?

12 posted on 10/08/2007 8:10:53 AM PDT by dfwgator (The University of Florida - Still Championship U (At least we didn't lose to Stanford))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: kbennkc

nonsense.

“way back” there was no government recording of who was married. You only had family bibles, church records, and often times, NOTHING. (not to mention the inheritance fraud) The government involvement has NOTHING to do with ritual. In fact all you need do is sign the dotted line at the marriage license window together and you are legally married with no “ritual”.

This is about ENDORSING a specific sexual ACT. This is about deinstitutionalizing the family unit.

That has nothing to do with whether or not the government. merely records a marriage.


13 posted on 10/08/2007 8:12:13 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
proponents will launch a multimillion-dollar advertising campaign...

And if that doesn't work, proponents can just go on doing what they've been doing for the last few decades: changing the climate by nibbling away using TV programs, hollyweird movies, propaganda in public schools, etc.

14 posted on 10/08/2007 8:13:43 AM PDT by C210N
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
Truly, I don't see what the hoo-hah is about. Well, I do in that gays are wanting to be "normalized", but from the pro-gay marriage standpoint, there's nothing to see here.

If you look at marriage as a legal contract, then there's absolutely no benefit that a marriage conveys, that can't be obtained legally with a little forethought (wills, "next of kin", inheritance, etc).

If you look at marriage as a religious contract (as I do) then...unless you are arrogant enough to re-write God's word, then there's nothing in the Bible that says "Marriage is between a Man and a Woman, unless you happen to disagree with that." End of story, as far as I'm concerned.

So, IMHO, all this boils down to is gays bellowing at the top of their lungs that "They're just like us, except different."

15 posted on 10/08/2007 8:14:01 AM PDT by wbill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: B Knotts

Also add mexico to post.


16 posted on 10/08/2007 8:15:04 AM PDT by Vaduz (and just think how clean the cities would become again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory

I am afraid I have so completely failed to make my point for you , that I am beyond rehabilitation .


17 posted on 10/08/2007 8:16:44 AM PDT by kbennkc (For those who have fought for it , freedom has a flavor the protected will never know)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
 
 
Just say NO to the doctrines of
Transhumanism and Postgenderism

18 posted on 10/08/2007 8:17:13 AM PDT by VxH (One if by Land, Two if by Sea, and Three if by Wire Transfer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

Apparently. Also, ones grandmother, sibling, etc.


19 posted on 10/08/2007 8:18:22 AM PDT by Dante3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Eastbound

It is actually a direct talking point of Prof. Lakoff’s ‘winning with words’.

His propaganda advise is to eliminate the concept of children in marriage and ONLY talk about “marriage is about two people who loooove each other and are committed to a relationship.”

IOW Prof. Lakoff is substituting hedonistic satisfaction to marriage is an institution which society requards because it benefits society.

This ad campaign is urging marriage be defined by an sexual acts of adults.


20 posted on 10/08/2007 8:18:45 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Interesting slogan...Open Hearts Open Minds...If I am not mistaken that is the present slogan for the United Methodist Chruch.


21 posted on 10/08/2007 8:19:39 AM PDT by mware (Americans in armchairs....doing the job of the media.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory

“But the GOP leadership is stuck on stupid.”

You found them? Where have they been? Most believe there is no GOP leadership and no GOP governor. Where were they?


22 posted on 10/08/2007 8:19:39 AM PDT by edcoil (Reality doesn't say much - doesn't need too)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
"What if you couldn't marry the person you loved?"

What if you couldn't have sex with multiple random partners in a public venue?

23 posted on 10/08/2007 8:19:44 AM PDT by Alouette (Vicious Babushka)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
Just because a person can have abnormal sex with a person of the same sex or with an animal or tree stump has nothing to do with marriage.

That would only corrupt the word marriage like they did with the once good word gay.

24 posted on 10/08/2007 8:20:38 AM PDT by HuntsvilleTxVeteran (Remember the Alamo, Goliad and WACO, It is Time for a new San Jacinto)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
Maybe we could consider running ads that show unedited footage from the most recent perv-fest in San Francisco. You know, the one that's got Miller Brewing in such hot water. Maybe people would like to see the REAL world of homosexuality, instead of some sanitized, make-believe, Leave It To Beaver (!) version.

Once again, the greatest weapon against this sickness is Truth -- the awful light of day.

25 posted on 10/08/2007 8:20:48 AM PDT by IronJack (=)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MaestroLC
And when that doesn’t work, they will ram it down our throats anyway...

Using the courts of course...

26 posted on 10/08/2007 8:21:01 AM PDT by Edgerunner (If you won't let the military fight your battles, you will have to. Keep your powder dry...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

“Same-sex marriage backers go to TV - New ads ask viewers to
‘open hearts and minds’ on the issue.”

They are hoping folks will be so open-minded that their brains fall out
onto the ground.

I hope this is a sign of desperation on their part.

And I PRAY they get much louder and b-tchy with their demands.

That should be a big boost for the Republicans in Nov. 2008.
(Maybe the only boost the Republicans can get)


27 posted on 10/08/2007 8:21:37 AM PDT by VOA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

“Same-sex marriage”

Can’t they just call it HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE, and cut out the crap with “same sex”? If they’re homosexuals and damn-well proud of it, then call it what it is: HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE!


28 posted on 10/08/2007 8:24:40 AM PDT by laweeks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

They really mean for the homo-marriage supporters for us to turn off our hearts & souls and open our backsides up to them and as well as the children of this nation so the older gays / trannies /lesbo’s / beasties will have open season on the youth for recruitment to their lifestyles?


29 posted on 10/08/2007 8:31:09 AM PDT by RSmithOpt (Liberalism: Highway to Hell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: edcoil

Mel Martinez was about to fly to California but he found out these homosexuals were not asking for immigration AMNESTY.


30 posted on 10/08/2007 8:34:05 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
Not surprising. This is how pro-abortion folks got their message out to the public, starting with a Maude episode in the early 70's, I believe. Abortion was presented as a heartbreaking, but inevitable choice for the woman, and anyone who disagreed was portrayed as a mean, nasty person, usually a man, who didn't want what was best for the woman involved. This attitude permeated the airwaves for many years, and as a result, the opinion polls reflected it. Folks were willing to accept abortion, because they didn't want to be associated with those radical, woman hating people.

It wasn't until Operation Rescue that folks' eyes were opened to who the pro-lifers really were. Suddenly, on the TV news, people began seeing young women and old women along with the men, being arrested for peacefully picketing abortion clinics, or staging sit-downs reminiscent of the civil rights era. The images of pro-lifers on the news didn't square with those they'd been fed by the entertainment industry for the previous 10 years, and it made some folks stop and think about the issue for the first time. From that time, to the present, you can see the changes in the attitudes among those polled about abortion.

The issue of homosexual 'marriage' will be different in that there is already a lot of information out in the public about it, and a structure already built up to oppose it. Folks won't be blindsided by it as they were by the abortion issue. That is, everyone except we here in MA who had it forced on us by the liberals on the Supreme Judicial Court, and were denied our chance to vote on the issue by the Democrat controlled state legislature.

31 posted on 10/08/2007 8:34:16 AM PDT by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mware

One of the many reasons I left the Methodist Church 6 years ago. It was nothing more than liberal social indoctrination of my children.


32 posted on 10/08/2007 8:34:51 AM PDT by MichiganCheese (Pray for our nation's boys, our future will be determined by the kind of men we bring them up to be.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

My heart and mind is pleanty open.... that doesn’t however lead me to conclude that 2 people engaging in hedonistic narccissm constitutes a marriage.

They are free to do what they will, but that will never ever be a marriage.

Only people so wrapped up in themselves could remotely believe and dillude themselves into thinking marriage is simply about sexual acts.


33 posted on 10/08/2007 8:36:57 AM PDT by HamiltonJay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MichiganCheese
I converted from UM to RC three years ago.
34 posted on 10/08/2007 8:37:07 AM PDT by mware (Americans in armchairs....doing the job of the media.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

your question would be better posed to a faggot or fag supporter such as the author or producer of the commercial described in the article above.


35 posted on 10/08/2007 8:37:35 AM PDT by Vn_survivor_67-68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: HuntsvilleTxVeteran
That would only corrupt the word marriage like they did with the once good word gay.

That's precisely WHY I don't use it in their context. If I'm talking about sexual activity between persons of the same gender, I use the word homosexuality, which is what it is. There's nothing 'gay' about it.

36 posted on 10/08/2007 8:37:59 AM PDT by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: SuziQ

however the MSM selectivly reports.

Just look at the miller beer sponsorship of the sex fair in sanfrancisco. ALL the media outlets sanitized the story, not even FNC covered the truth. There was no statement that the folsm fair was about homosexual sex or visuals to show EXACTLY what miller beer was sponsoring.

(now that all the programs were printed and distributed, miller “pulls” the logo)

Look how CNN with GLEE was showing the san francisco weddings, they thought the public would be thrilled but the reality soon hit the public was being repulsed. CNN has not shown those images since.

It is now going to be about selective OMMISSION.


37 posted on 10/08/2007 8:40:22 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: SuziQ
I either use the term homosexual or queer!
38 posted on 10/08/2007 8:43:26 AM PDT by HuntsvilleTxVeteran (Remember the Alamo, Goliad and WACO, It is Time for a new San Jacinto)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
Same-sex marriage backers go to TV - New ads ask viewers to 'open hearts and minds' on the issue.

Open my what?
I was there when we (Normal-Americans) were all asked to "open our hearts and minds" to a little tolerance.

Ask me how, from normals' viewpoint, how that worked out...

Fat chance!

39 posted on 10/08/2007 8:44:14 AM PDT by Publius6961 (MSM: Israelis are killed by rockets; Lebanese are killed by Israelis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory

Yeah, it’s funny that this ad shows a real marriage (a man and a woman) with the bride being humiliated. If homosexuality is so attractive, why don’t they show a homo “marriage” with an effeminate male falling flat on his face?

Orwellian diversionary tactics, IMO.


40 posted on 10/08/2007 8:50:45 AM PDT by puroresu (Enjoy ASIAN CINEMA? See my Freeper page for recommendations (updated!).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: puroresu

I was expecting a typical BS homosexuals with “children” trying to look normal.


41 posted on 10/08/2007 8:59:34 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
"open hearts and minds"

That's what they claim they want now. After normalizing this behavior they will proceed to opening other parts of the anatomy.

42 posted on 10/08/2007 9:00:31 AM PDT by ConservaTexan (February 6, 1911)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: puroresu

BTW where did you see the image?

the newspaper link does not have the ad.


43 posted on 10/08/2007 9:02:12 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: puroresu

BTW where did you see the image?

the newspaper link does not have the ad.

The article says they want to start 500000 conversations. It will be the same as other places, 500000 conversations about the fact homosexual behavior is abnormal and should not be endorsed.


44 posted on 10/08/2007 9:03:01 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

When will they get it through their thick heads that homosexuality has absolutely nothing to do with hearts and minds? I wish someone had the temerity to put together a public service announcement detailing the risks and dangers associated with homosexuality and the other perversions that have now been included with the movement.

At the most basic level homosexuality is just functionally incorrect as is the idea of homosexual marriage. It is a confusion of otherwise normal drives for friendship and partnership with the fulfillment of a sexual fetish. I do not really care about that so much, people do things that are incorrect all the time. I draw the line when they are working to change laws to reflect their sexual peculiarities and force not just acceptance but push forth the false idea that same sex marriage is no different than normal marriage.
It is indeed different.

Everyone knows what it means to have a normal sexual relationship though it is popular now to pretend otherwise.
They ask “What is normal” and then because they refuse to answer the question assume others are as challenged as they.
They can pretend but an anus will never be a sex organ and long after many of these are wearing colostomy bags collecting sympathy cards and quilts it still will not be.

They use the hearts and minds crap to derail the brain in favor of a trip down a land of delusion. They should just have their partnerships quietly and leave the rest of the world alone and we most certainly would leave them alone provided they stop exposing themselves in public restrooms and having sex in public parks and such. We do not have to indulge them and their political ideas in order to be open minded with big hearts. I don’t see any need for changing things as they are and most certainly don’t want to do anything to make homosexuality and its ugly partners bisexuality and transexuality more visible in society.


45 posted on 10/08/2007 9:13:32 AM PDT by Maelstorm (Saying "No" does not mean that you have no heart but often means you clearly have a mind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
Let the Left waste its money on TV ads. They've been trying to convince the American people to allow same sex marriage for years and they've all lost on the issue.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

46 posted on 10/08/2007 9:16:08 AM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eastbound
You can cohabit with the person you love. Nothing in California law prohibits gay men and women from living together if they want. Where does it say the union needs to be officially sanctioned for them to be together?

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

47 posted on 10/08/2007 9:18:12 AM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
I haven't seen the ad, but the article describes it. It shows a happy bride running down the aisle to her groom, but she gets tripped and falls on her face. We're then lectured about how terrible it is that people can't "marry" the person they love if that person is of the same sex. But we're shown a normal marriage. My guess is that people would roll on the floor laughing at an ad showing a gay guy running down the aisle to his (ahem) groom, tossing floral bouquets, only to fall flat on his face when someone trips him. Actually, I'd kinda like to see that, but I'm bad! :-)
48 posted on 10/08/2007 9:19:26 AM PDT by puroresu (Enjoy ASIAN CINEMA? See my Freeper page for recommendations (updated!).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: wbill
Amen. And California law already provides gays and lesbians with all the rights, privileges and benefits of marriage except the formal name. You'd think they would be happy.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

49 posted on 10/08/2007 9:20:21 AM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: kbennkc
This should be taught as a example of creeping incrementalism. Way back when government first started getting involved in regulating a sacred ritual this battle was as good as lost.

I don't believe gov't regulation of marriage itself has led us to this point. The lowering of social mores has created this mess. But gov't interference with everything else - such as education, adoption, health insurance - has added to it.

The main reason that changing the legal definition of marriage affects the rest of us is that it affects everything else: Our children are forced to learn about it in public school. Even if we don't send our kids to public school, we're forced to pay taxes for it. And then "same-sex couples" can adopt children - maybe even our own children if something happens to us. Insurance companies have to insure them as a married couple. Etc. Etc.

Because gov't is involved in everything, changing the legal definition of marriage affects everything.

And, although I may be flamed for saying it, the creeping incrementalism comes not only in the lowering of social mores, but in the use of sperm banks and surrogate mothers. I feel sympathy for any couple unable to bear children together. But, once it became acceptable for a married man and woman to go outside the marriage and essentially bring in a third party to have a child, and then put only their names on the birth certificate, the role of birth parent was reduced to lab rat. Marriage became nothing more than two people wanting to be together. And now here we are with two women or two men equating themselves with men and women who cannot bear children together, using the same technologies to have children, and putting their own names on the birth certificates.

50 posted on 10/08/2007 9:20:26 AM PDT by Tired of Taxes (Dad, I will always think of you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-74 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