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

Skip to comments.

California Supreme Court overturns gay marriage ban (4-3)
AP on Yahoo ^ | 5/15/08 | AP

Posted on 05/15/2008 10:18:34 AM PDT by NormsRevenge

SAN FRANCISCO - The California Supreme Court has overturned a gay marriage ban in a ruling that would make the nation's largest state the second one to allow gay and lesbian weddings.

The justices' 4-3 decision Thursday says domestic partnerships are not a good enough substitute for marriage. Chief Justice Ron George wrote the opinion.

The city of San Francisco, two dozen gay and lesbian couples and gay rights groups sued in March 2004 after the court halted San Francisco's monthlong same-sex wedding march.

The case before the court involved a series of lawsuits seeking to overturn a voter-approved law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

With the ruling, California could become the second state after Massachusetts where gay and lesbian residents can marry.

"What happens in California, either way, will have a huge impact around the nation. It will set the tone," said Geoffrey Kors, executive director of the gay rights group Equality California.

California already offers same-sex couples who register as domestic partners the same legal rights and responsibilities as married spouses, including the right to divorce and to sue for child support. It's therefore unclear what additional relief state lawmakers could offer short of marriage if the court renders the existing ban unconstitutional.

A coalition of religious and social conservative groups is attempting to put a measure on the November ballot that would enshrine California's current laws banning gay marriage in the state constitution.

The Secretary of State is expected to rule by the end of June whether the sponsors gathered enough signature to qualify the marriage amendment, similar to ones enacted in 26 other states.

The cases before the California court were brought by the city of San Francisco, two dozen gay and lesbian couples, Equality California and another gay rights group in March 2004 after the court halted San Francisco's monthlong same-sex wedding march that took place at Mayor Gavin Newsom's direction.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Front Page News; Government; Politics/Elections; US: California
KEYWORDS: aids; caglbt; california; children; deviancy; disease; families; gayagenda; gaymarriage; homosexualagenda; marriage; overturn; perversion; perverts; poofs; samesexmarriage; supremecourt; values
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-172 next last
To: NormsRevenge

Now that the RNC has McCain’s pro-globaloney stuff up on their website, now they can add pro-gay-marriage links. Why wait?


51 posted on 05/15/2008 10:50:50 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (The formerly grand OLD party has completely Whigged out.( Join the new one: SelfGovernment.US))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EagleUSA
Pathetic isn't it?

Here in Long Beach we have to endure the "Long Beach Pride" festival this weekend.

Can you imagine - a whole city officially taking PRIDE in sodomy?

Tried doing a search through federal law for the national ruling on perversion, but could not find anything meaningful - but in my search I did come across the Clintons' tax records! LOL.

52 posted on 05/15/2008 10:50:58 AM PDT by Churchillspirit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: mikelets456
They won’t let 16 year old kids drink, smoke or drive, but they’ll let or support them having sex and risk getting all sexually transmitted diseases including HIV...

Not to mention other unspeakably horrible diseases and conditions.

Gay bowel syndrome, which has also been described as gay bowel disease, was named as an illness in 1976 in the medical literature via the journal Annals of Clinical and Laboratory Science. Gay bowel syndrome is a clinical pattern of anorectal and colon diseases which occur with unusual frequency in homosexual patients...

http://www.hopkins-hivguide.org/literature_review/02-2004/new_look_at_gay_bowel_syndrome.html

RESOURCES

http://www.fda.gov/Cber/faq/msmdonor.htm

http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/Books/lbb/x590.htm


53 posted on 05/15/2008 10:51:46 AM PDT by XR7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

Ronald M. George, (since 1991), Chief Justice (elevated in 1996)
Marvin R. Baxter, (since 1991), Associate Justice
Ming W. Chin, (since 1996), Associate Justice
Carol A. Corrigan, (since 2006), Associate Justice
Joyce L. Kennard, (since 1989), Associate Justice
Carlos R. Moreno, (since 2001), Associate Justice
Kathryn Mickle Werdegar, (since 1994), Associate Justice

The Court currently has six Republicans appointees (George, Kennard, Baxter, Werdegar, Chin, and Corrigan) and one Democrat (Moreno).


54 posted on 05/15/2008 10:52:43 AM PDT by CounterCounterCulture
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrLee

Dunno.

The part I like is that he doesn’t really have to...the last thing the Donks need is having this issue raise its head again in the middle of a rocky campaign. They are on the wrong side of this very emotional issue, and it’s gonna hurt them.

And if the constitutional amendment gets on the ballot, it will pass. So the liberals on the Cali supreme court get a smackdown, and Obama has to try to avoid getting mixed up with this. Cool, I say.


55 posted on 05/15/2008 10:53:32 AM PDT by absalom01 (The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: beethovenfan
...and the country continues its downward spiral toward oblivion.

California, at least. And they've been spiraling for some time now.

56 posted on 05/15/2008 10:55:31 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
A 4-3 decision by this court in many other cases would be described as “deeply divided.”
57 posted on 05/15/2008 10:56:13 AM PDT by Fundamentally Fair (There was once consensus that the world was flat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

Good grief. More legislating from the bench. That’s the grossest part of this. The courts usurping the power of the legislature.


58 posted on 05/15/2008 10:56:25 AM PDT by MovementConservative (John Roberts and Sam Alito.... Thank you GWB)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Argus
The militant homosexualists and their communist allies have now forced us to go to the labor and expense of amending the California constitution to make it absolutely clear that marriage will not be redefined out of existence in this state.

Don't you think it's worth the effort?

59 posted on 05/15/2008 10:56:46 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: stevio
And more importantly has he commented on this?

Not yet. Maybe last hour it will come up.

60 posted on 05/15/2008 10:56:46 AM PDT by itsahoot (Global Government is coming because, I guess we want it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
so long George, you used to seem OK

So much for Republican appointed judges huh.

61 posted on 05/15/2008 10:58:36 AM PDT by itsahoot (Global Government is coming because, I guess we want it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

ping.


62 posted on 05/15/2008 10:58:45 AM PDT by XR7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: NRA1995
let the Mexicans have it.

Already have half of it

63 posted on 05/15/2008 10:59:57 AM PDT by itsahoot (Global Government is coming because, I guess we want it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: informavoracious

P.S. I thought Alaska, not California, was the nation’s LARGEST state. Texas is second largest. California is the MOST POPULOUS, not the LARGEST. There’s a difference. But who has time for geography or English when the primary mission of public schools is social engineering?


64 posted on 05/15/2008 11:01:07 AM PDT by informavoracious (Freedom Isn't Free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

Uh-oh, BIG earthquake coming soon !!!


65 posted on 05/15/2008 11:03:20 AM PDT by freedomson (Tagline comment removed by moderator)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrLee
God instituted marriage way back at the “beginning”. And, satan’s been trying to destroy it ever sense.

Let's be honest. We started the process of destroying marriage when we instituted divorce at will.

66 posted on 05/15/2008 11:03:43 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

UGH! I read some of it. I just heard on Fox that 6 of the 7 justices were appointed by Republicans, or at least governors with an (R) next to their name. Even Corrigan’s dissenting opinion was a gagger. WASS!

Did you see all the pages of attorneys in this case? Full employment project!

Concurring opinions:
George
Wedegar
Kennard
Moreno

Dissenting:
Baxter
Chin
Corrigan


67 posted on 05/15/2008 11:07:01 AM PDT by calcowgirl ("Liberalism is just Communism sold by the drink." P. J. O'Rourke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: TruthConquers

Leftists twist themselves in knots to get out of this argument, but

if “one man and one woman” is an “arbitrary” definition of marriage that is subject to revision,

how is “two adults” any less of an “arbitrary” definition?


68 posted on 05/15/2008 11:07:03 AM PDT by MrB (You can't reason people out of a position that they didn't use reason to get into in the first place)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: stevio

OK, so maybe we’ll just peal off the coast and keep the inland part that actually produces the food that you reference. The inlanders’ counties and districts are conservative voting.


69 posted on 05/15/2008 11:08:14 AM PDT by MrB (You can't reason people out of a position that they didn't use reason to get into in the first place)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Fundamentally Fair

Now what happens? gay marriage is now legal or are there others that need to approve this?

This is an utter disgrace. These people will approve anything that goes against GOD!!!

Communists (AKA Democrats) want to destroy this country. Did you ever go onto the “Communists for USA” website and compare their beliefs with the Democrats? It’s exactly the same....it boils down to government controlled everything and the removal of GOD from society!! I for one am fed up!!!

I know first hand about the gay agenda, we started a grassroots opposition to “that’s family” a video depicting gay parents and families to 8 year old kids, and it got pulled!! These so called “tolerant teachers”, sent us threats, compromised my bank account and gave us a very hard time....tolerance? They are only tolerant of those who agree with them.

Very soon, it will be time to take this country back....


70 posted on 05/15/2008 11:11:35 AM PDT by mikelets456
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl

I saw the pages and pages of legal folk,, what a bonanza..

California’s true cash cow is litigation and all those who milk it for all its worth would defend the devil if it made ‘em big bucks..

ps.. kennard and wedegar are especially disappointing.


71 posted on 05/15/2008 11:14:50 AM PDT by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi ... Godspeed ... ICE toll-free tip hotline—1-866-DHS-2-ICE ... 9/11 .. Never FoRget!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: mikelets456
Good luck California. Here in Massachusetts the powers that be are consideing Gay Marriage settled law.

There is a constitutional amendment in the works but it needs to be passed by 25% of the legislature one more time to be on the ballot. Not holding my breath.

72 posted on 05/15/2008 11:18:40 AM PDT by AU72
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: mikelets456
Already have half of it

Sex before 8 or its too late, don'tcha know.

73 posted on 05/15/2008 11:19:07 AM PDT by itsahoot (Global Government is coming because, I guess we want it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: MrB

As long as it’s with strict immigration policies, deal.


74 posted on 05/15/2008 11:19:56 AM PDT by stevio (Crunchy Con - God, guns, guts, and organically grown crunchy nuts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: MrB

Don’t forget San Luis Obispo county. We may be on the coast but our county still goes red on election maps. San Luis may be liberal central but the towns throughout the county give it the conservative edge.


75 posted on 05/15/2008 11:20:46 AM PDT by chargers fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: shawnlaw

The IRS does not recognize gay marriages for federal tax purposes. A gay married couple from Massachuesets cannot file a “Married Joint” or “Married Seperate” federal tax return. So there will be no effect at all.


76 posted on 05/15/2008 11:23:23 AM PDT by MissouriConservative (When the winds of change blow hard enough, the most trivial of things can become deadly projectiles.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard

I got to get me one of those barrett rifles and that T-shirt.


77 posted on 05/15/2008 11:26:42 AM PDT by SoConPubbie (GOP: If you reward bad behavior all you get is more bad behavior.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Don't you think it's worth the effort?

Sure I do. It just shouldn't be necessary to affirm something so obvious as that marriage means one man and one woman. But that's what we've come to.

78 posted on 05/15/2008 11:27:32 AM PDT by Argus (Obama: All turban and no goats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: stevio
"California is a huge source of our nations food supply. "

Some of their food is tainted and rotten.

79 posted on 05/15/2008 11:33:29 AM PDT by spunkets ("Freedom is about authority", Rudy Giuliani, gun grabber)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: CounterCounterCulture

%hank you, Pete Rino Wilson!


80 posted on 05/15/2008 11:34:19 AM PDT by rfp1234 (Phodopus campbelli: household ruler since July 2007.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: MrB

Simple,

Gay marriage won’t hurt any traditional marriages. Nobody is going to say “Wait, I can marry somebody who’s the same sex as me! So long honey, have fun with the kids...”

Legalizing polygamy can hurt traditional marriage, if a husband or a wife would want to take another spouse and the current spouse refuses, the requesting spouse can file for divorce with cause and get a favorable alimony, custody and division of assets ruling.


81 posted on 05/15/2008 11:35:14 AM PDT by Philly Nomad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
This is a huge gift to conservatives, and even Republicans this November. If you legalize gay marriage in California, you've essentially legalized it everywhere under the doctrine of reciprocity - except in those states that have placed a gay marriage ban in their constitutions. So, Mr. and Ms. America, how do you like having liberal activist judges deciding that your state will now have to honor gay marriage?

This won't sit well with most voters, and it's a minefield for Obama.

82 posted on 05/15/2008 11:41:26 AM PDT by mojito
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Philly Nomad

IF the destruction of traditional marriage weren’t the ultimate goal, you might have a sliver of a point.

The institution of marriage must be protected because it is the basis of our traditional culture, it is the best environment to raise children whether the couple chooses to or not,

and this is also why the left MUST destroy it. Families are too much of an “independent unit” to allow to exist when the goal is control.


83 posted on 05/15/2008 11:44:34 AM PDT by MrB (You can't reason people out of a position that they didn't use reason to get into in the first place)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: mojito
So, Mr. and Ms. America, how do you like having liberal activist judges deciding that your state will now have to honor gay marriage?

Let's bring it down to numbers -

how does MR and MRS (male and female He made them) like having

FOUR UNELECTED TYRANTS that are unaccountable to the electorate

deciding for the whole country that your definition of marriage is bigotted?

84 posted on 05/15/2008 11:47:37 AM PDT by MrB (You can't reason people out of a position that they didn't use reason to get into in the first place)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: MrB
FOUR UNELECTED TYRANTS that are unaccountable to the electorate deciding for the whole country that your definition of marriage is bigoted?

You know, that would make a catchy campaign commercial!

85 posted on 05/15/2008 11:55:52 AM PDT by mojito
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: mojito

McCain would condemn it as too harsh, partisan, and intolerant.


86 posted on 05/15/2008 12:00:04 PM PDT by MrB (You can't reason people out of a position that they didn't use reason to get into in the first place)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

http://www.ipscscott.com/vote.html


87 posted on 05/15/2008 12:00:17 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: All

article update

The GUb surrenders here too.. last paragraph.

what a skinky individual, all huff and no bite.. and now not even a huff..

California’s top court overturns gay marriage ban
LISA LEFF, Associated Press

SAN FRANCISCO - In a monumental victory for the gay rights movement, the California Supreme Court overturned a voter-approved ban on gay marriage Thursday in a ruling that would allow same-sex couples in the nation’s biggest state to tie the knot.

Domestic partnerships are not a good enough substitute for marriage, the justices ruled 4-3 in striking down the ban.

Outside the courthouse, gay marriage supporters cried and cheered as the news spread.

Jeanie Rizzo, one of the plaintiffs, called Pali Cooper, her partner of 19 years, and asked, “Pali, will you marry me?”

“This is a very historic day. This is just such freedom for us,” Rizzo said. “This is a message that says all of us are entitled to human dignity.”

In the Castro, historically a center of the gay community in San Francisco, Tim Oviatt started crying while watching the news on TV.

“I’ve been waiting for this all my life,” he said. “This is a life-affirming moment.”

The city of San Francisco, two dozen gay and lesbian couples and gay rights groups sued in March 2004 after the court halted the monthlong wedding march that took place when Mayor Gavin Newsom opened the doors of City Hall to same-sex marriages.

“Today the California Supreme Court took a giant leap to ensure that everybody — not just in the state of California, but throughout the country — will have equal treatment under the law,” said City Attorney Dennis Herrera, who argued the case for San Francisco.

The challenge for gay rights advocates, however, is not over.

A coalition of religious and social conservative groups is attempting to put a measure on the November ballot that would enshrine laws banning gay marriage in the state constitution.

The Secretary of State is expected to rule by the end of June whether the sponsors gathered enough signatures to qualify the marriage amendment, similar to ones enacted in 26 other states.

If voters pass the measure in November, it would trump the court’s decision.

California already offers same-sex couples who register as domestic partners the same legal rights and responsibilities as married spouses, including the right to divorce and to sue for child support.

But, “Our state now recognizes that an individual’s capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual’s sexual orientation,” Chief Justice Ron George wrote for the court’s majority, which also included Justices Joyce Kennard, Kathryn Werdegar and Carlos Moreno.

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Marvin Baxter agreed with many arguments of the majority but said the court overstepped its authority. Changes to marriage laws should be decided by the voters, Baxter wrote. Justices Ming Chin and Carol Corrigan also dissented.

The conservative Alliance Defense Fund says it plans to ask the justices for a stay of their decision until after the fall election, said Glen Lavey, senior counsel for the group.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has twice vetoed legislation that would’ve granted marriage rights to same-sex couples, said in a news release that he respected the court’s decision and “will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling.”


88 posted on 05/15/2008 12:03:15 PM PDT by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi ... Godspeed ... ICE toll-free tip hotline—1-866-DHS-2-ICE ... 9/11 .. Never FoRget!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Philly Nomad
Gay marriage won’t hurt any traditional marriages. Nobody is going to say “Wait, I can marry somebody who’s the same sex as me! So long honey, have fun with the kids...”

tell that to McGreevy.

89 posted on 05/15/2008 12:04:59 PM PDT by WOBBLY BOB (Conservatives are to McCain what Charlie Brown is to Lucy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: MrB
FOUR UNELECTED TYRANTS that are unaccountable to the electorate

Technically, California Supreme Court justices are accountable to the electorate--certainly more so than the USSC. At the next general election after they are appointed to the court, they have to stand for retention, and again every twelve years after that. In 1986, three justices (most famously Rose Bird) got the boot.

90 posted on 05/15/2008 12:05:53 PM PDT by Bubba Ho-Tep ("More weight!"--Giles Corey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: absalom01

Isn’t it time to start talking about a third Constitutional Convention? Since we don’t follow the one we have let’s draft a new one and let each state decide if we want to stay. There is nothing, NOTHING, that California offers that Texas couldn’t do without.
Not computers, cars, shipping, avocados, or HIV.


91 posted on 05/15/2008 12:07:20 PM PDT by FreeTuba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: WOBBLY BOB
Gay marriage didn't hurt that marriage adultery and lying did.
92 posted on 05/15/2008 12:07:41 PM PDT by purpleraine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has twice vetoed legislation that would’ve granted marriage rights to same-sex couples, said in a news release that he respected the court’s decision and “will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling.”

Of course he won't. He's wanted this all along. No problem... he's been defeated before--he can be defeated again.

Having Jerry Brown arguing on behalf of Prop 22 Californians was a joke. Arnold did a lot to get Brown elected.

I cannot wait until we are rid of this Trojan Horse.

93 posted on 05/15/2008 12:08:43 PM PDT by calcowgirl ("Liberalism is just Communism sold by the drink." P. J. O'Rourke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: MrB

Could you give a brief summary of why this is destroying marriage. Ever since Mass. started this stuff, my marriage hasn’t been effected one bit and I don’t see how it ever will.


94 posted on 05/15/2008 12:09:16 PM PDT by purpleraine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: mojito

I agree, just as it did four years ago when Bush was re-elected.


95 posted on 05/15/2008 12:10:22 PM PDT by purpleraine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: WOBBLY BOB

HA! Good one.

But if Gay Marriage was accepted in the first place - he never would have married a woman.

But there’s a joke going around, “All Gays want to do is go to church, get married and raise children - they want to become republicans.”


96 posted on 05/15/2008 12:10:22 PM PDT by Philly Nomad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

To me this opens the door to say polygamy is legal and so is first cousin marriages and father to daughter and anything goes.


97 posted on 05/15/2008 12:10:54 PM PDT by CodeToad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

But, “Our state now recognizes that an individual’s capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual’s sexual orientation,” Chief Justice Ron George wrote for the court’s majority, which also included Justices Joyce Kennard, Kathryn Werdegar and Carlos Moreno.

Mr. George, if a man and a man or a woman and a woman could create new life without outside intervention or tools to assist,, I might buy that argument. The curse of believing in a Judeo-Christion ethic is religion gets mixed in it, and these days, there are no shortage of those who avoid or make it conform to their needs and use the courts to do so. This decision only further undercuts tarditional marriage and families.

A majority of the state’s voters has already spoken before, and yet , you play the game of the left. You render a vessel intended for justice useless and nothing more that a wart and to be ignored, even when it is so prominent, imo.

We will vote again, and you will hopefully have retired and moved on, it’s obvious your attempt to be fair falls far short of any intent you might claim to be just that.


98 posted on 05/15/2008 12:11:34 PM PDT by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi ... Godspeed ... ICE toll-free tip hotline—1-866-DHS-2-ICE ... 9/11 .. Never FoRget!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: EagleUSA

Questions? When did your dog agree to the engagement? And can you refer us to a good canine hotel?


99 posted on 05/15/2008 12:13:21 PM PDT by purpleraine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Argus

Yes, and perhaps boost Republican and conservative Independent turnout just enough to give McCain the edge in CA in November, causing him to back in to a Presidential win...

Wouldn’t that be a kick in the Liberal pants?


100 posted on 05/15/2008 12:15:10 PM PDT by Reagan80 ("Government is not the solution to our problem, Government IS the problem." -RR; 1980 Inaugural)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-172 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