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

Skip to comments.

Vermont legalizes gay marriage with veto override
Associated Press ^

Posted on 04/07/2009 8:36:25 AM PDT by wk4bush2004

MONTPELIER, Vt. (AP) — Vermont has become the fourth state to legalize gay marriage — and the first to do so with a legislature's vote.

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


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Front Page News; Government; US: Vermont
KEYWORDS: homosexualagenda; homotrolls; samesexmarriage; veto
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-158 next last

1 posted on 04/07/2009 8:36:25 AM PDT by wk4bush2004
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: wk4bush2004

Well, add Vermont to the list of useless states I won’t spend any money in again.


2 posted on 04/07/2009 8:37:47 AM PDT by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pissant

Please do. These idiots have to be stopped.


3 posted on 04/07/2009 8:38:41 AM PDT by Straight Vermonter (Posting from deep behind the Maple Curtain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: wk4bush2004

Wouldn’t expect anything different from Vermont. Too bad such a beautiful state has to be infected with socialists.


4 posted on 04/07/2009 8:39:06 AM PDT by Old Retired Army Guy (tHE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wk4bush2004

not surprising the homo’s have been invading that state for years.

They now Will move their money to other states and pick those states off

ME, NH,NY, NJ, RI,IL,Ohio, WA,OR,CO, all take note

homo’s coming to a state near you

no matter how may states they get it in which will never be mine then AI along with my kids will never accept them as married nor are they normal

I would like to see polygimists get their marriage in those states now
hey why not, lets see if the liberals and homo’s think that religious group should have their marriage and so called rights


5 posted on 04/07/2009 8:41:35 AM PDT by manc (Marriage is between a man and a woman no sick queer sham--- end racism end affirmative action)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wk4bush2004
This is essentially awful, but the one silver lining is that this calumny was done by a legislature which--presumably--reflects the wishes of its constitutents, and not some unelected black-robed mullahs on the VT Supreme Court. From what I understand of the political demographics of the "Green Mountain" state, this is probably popular with most Vermonters. Pity.
6 posted on 04/07/2009 8:45:31 AM PDT by seatrout (I wouldn't know most "American Idol" winners if I tripped over them!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wk4bush2004

Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa and Vermont ain’t exactly the creme of the crop. Three of them you’d expect this BS from and the other one had the general will of their people denied by, yet again; judges.


7 posted on 04/07/2009 8:46:11 AM PDT by GoldStandard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Straight Vermonter

shame that VT was once the most conservative state in the union but it comes a time when those few conservatives left have to say , time to move out and move on

my wife got out of MA and now we are down here in the south we make our votes count, our state gets our money and it does not go to liberal agenda’s and we helped to get the constitutional change to the FL state constitution.

infact get all conservatives out of the New England area and if one million people moved out and moved south then the laws can be changed for ever to stop liberals

CA, is lost so two million conservatives move out to CO,NM,AZ and it changes the game and political landscape not to mention who would now pay for their liberal agenda’s


8 posted on 04/07/2009 8:47:32 AM PDT by manc (Marriage is between a man and a woman no sick queer sham--- end racism end affirmative action)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: wk4bush2004

..Anyone else still want to insist that we don’t need a constitutional amendment?


9 posted on 04/07/2009 8:47:57 AM PDT by massmike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wk4bush2004

This looks like the MO of the gay marriage activists:
1. Have gay marriage put on the ballot.
2. Ignore the results if they don’t go your way, throw a fit.
3. Take your case to the legislature, where it’s legalized anyway. Screw the people!
4. Gay marriage legalized. Those silly citizens, thinking they had a say... Checkmate!


10 posted on 04/07/2009 8:53:10 AM PDT by Redgirl (Quick, someone change the locks!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wk4bush2004

notice now one state has voted FOR homo’s to be married.

that is because the majority of folk do not think it is normal for a man to poke another man up the arse or a woman wear a strap on pretending to be a woman.

not normal and not natural, so for those homo’s reading this.

you are certainly not accepted nor are you normal, you can pretend you are married but you are far from the truth.

If what you do is your business then stop the freak parades, stop telling us that you like to poke men up the arse or wear a strap on, stop telling us how you have special rights when you clearly do not according to the constitution

EVERY POLIGIMIST NOW SHOULD BE GETTING THEIR MARRAGE LEGALISED AS SHOULD THE WHACK JOBS WHO WANT TO MARRY THEIR DOG

Will you homo’s back that marriage and say it is their right.

Only until those groups do this then people will wake up and say enough is enough,

one man and woman is marriage , nothing else is close to marriage

for the record to you homo’s I ma not old nor am I religious, I just think you are mentally perverted and sick and guess what so does most folk so stop trying to say it is only religious types against you


11 posted on 04/07/2009 8:54:34 AM PDT by manc (Marriage is between a man and a woman no sick queer sham--- end racism end affirmative action)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: manc

Vermont....what happened to the farmers and generations of poor rural people? Are they ultra liberal now? I don’t get it


12 posted on 04/07/2009 8:55:17 AM PDT by kabumpo (Kabumpo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: massmike

exactly

what we need for people to wake up is for poligimists to try and get their marriage

I kid you not it is the only way for others to realise that we need the change.

bush should have tried to get it done when we had power and the people were fed up of the Dems, now we have to try again in a couple of years

In the meantime I want to see these groups get their kind of marriage legalised.

I wonder what the homo’s would say to that and their rights


13 posted on 04/07/2009 8:57:00 AM PDT by manc (Marriage is between a man and a woman no sick queer sham--- end racism end affirmative action)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: seatrout

I agree with you, but you are probably going to be blasted by others.


14 posted on 04/07/2009 8:58:10 AM PDT by jim_trent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: manc

we are down here in the south

I live in Louisiana in a conservative area and I can’t imagine stomaching was those liberal/socialistic states spew out. I would drown in my own vomit (sorry to be so graphic) if I had to live in any of these states. It is unfortunate because these states are truly beautiful but only in a scenic sense.


15 posted on 04/07/2009 8:58:36 AM PDT by Bitsy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: kabumpo

They moved out when the barbarian hordes from Massachusetts overran the state.


16 posted on 04/07/2009 8:58:56 AM PDT by Pyro7480 ("If you know how not to pray, take Joseph as your master, and you will not go astray." - St. Teresa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: kabumpo

they are still there but not many

for years liberals, aging hippies and homo’s moved tot he state as they were outcasts but then they started to get a foot hold of the state and now are in charge of it.

Believe it or not but on a couple of homo sites they actually tell homo’s where to move and whom to vote for so the agenda can be pushed.
Once it has been done then they move on

Look at the MA homo’s who first got married, they moved to other states and did tings like well I want a divorce you have to recognise my marriage or we are here in this new state and we want benefits

It is not marriage they want but it is their agenda tom be accepted and pushed onto the masses

Like I said the only way people will now wake up is for every kind of group to use the same argument for their marriage to be legal.
Every argument the homo’s used can be used for other groups and the judges cannot by rights stop their kind of marriage.


17 posted on 04/07/2009 9:00:48 AM PDT by manc (Marriage is between a man and a woman no sick queer sham--- end racism end affirmative action)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: manc

“VT was once the most conservative state in the union”

Maybe 60 years ago, but not for genrerations


18 posted on 04/07/2009 9:01:05 AM PDT by PurpleMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: massmike

Sure we need a constitutional amendment.

Not going to get it though. To pass one requires something like 80% popular support, pretty evenly distributed throughout the country. We probably couldn’t come up with much more than 60% and dropping.

One house of the legislature in each of 13 states would derail it. You truly believe there are 48 states that would vote for the amendment.

There hasn’t been an amendment passed with regard to a controversial issue since those passed right after the Civil War. And they passed using methods that were at best only arguably constitutional.


19 posted on 04/07/2009 9:01:16 AM PDT by Sherman Logan (Everyone has a right to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: wk4bush2004

Looks like the activists’ goal of gay marriage in al New England by 2012 may happen sooner than that.


20 posted on 04/07/2009 9:01:51 AM PDT by NinoFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bitsy

we’re in North east FL a conservative area and I got my wife out of MA as she was from there.
We helped to stop liberals pushing their agenda here and we helped to stop homo’s from getting married

I only wish that every conservative not republican move out of the north east and get south, or midwest.

we then can make our stand against them.
millions of conservatives move out of there then they the north east states will lose money, electoral count , power etc

the new states where these millions of conservatives go to get more conservative and it will be a power base where non liberal can change for generations


21 posted on 04/07/2009 9:03:55 AM PDT by manc (Marriage is between a man and a woman no sick queer sham--- end racism end affirmative action)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: wk4bush2004

The next step, BTW, is a federal lawsuit under the “full faith and credit” clause to require all states to recognize the gay marriages performed in those states where it is legal.

And, IMO, they have a decent case under the Constitution.


22 posted on 04/07/2009 9:04:15 AM PDT by Sherman Logan (Everyone has a right to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: manc

That wouldn’t stop the US Supreme Court though...


23 posted on 04/07/2009 9:06:29 AM PDT by NinoFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: GoldStandard
Three of them you’d expect this BS from and the other one had the general will of their people denied by, yet again; judges.

CT legislature and people don't want it. A one-vote majority on CTSC said you have to do it. Funny though, I can't find where it says that one branch of government is superior to another.

24 posted on 04/07/2009 9:07:06 AM PDT by FreepShop1 (www.FreepShop.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: wk4bush2004

This is all according to the “New England Project” that the gays launched years ago as a springboard to national homo recognition.


25 posted on 04/07/2009 9:08:01 AM PDT by FreepShop1 (www.FreepShop.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wk4bush2004; StarFan; Dutchy; alisasny; BobFromNJ; BUNNY2003; Cacique; Clemenza; Coleus; cyborg; ...

Great... now we’re up to FOUR Gay States: Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa and now Vermont. *barf*


26 posted on 04/07/2009 9:09:12 AM PDT by nutmeg (DemocRATs: The party of tax cheats and other assorted crooks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GoldStandard

There is no comparison between Iowa and the other three states. Sixty-two percent of Iowans oppose gay marriage. And, what happened in that state is nothing short of tyrannical.


27 posted on 04/07/2009 9:09:37 AM PDT by Ol' Sparky (Liberal Republicans are the greater of two evils)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: wk4bush2004

All the folk in VT that think gay marriage doesnt effect them will learn differently when their kids schoolbooks have to be changed to insure that homo marriage is portrayed identically to real marriage.


28 posted on 04/07/2009 9:10:10 AM PDT by Hacklehead (Liberalism is the art of taking what works, breaking it, and then blaming conservatives.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kabumpo

>>Vermont....what happened to the farmers and generations of poor rural people? Are they ultra liberal now? I don’t get it

Vermont got invaded by the “back to the landers” big time in the 60s and 70s. Then the flatlander Massholes and New Yorkers started moving in. And there are a bunch of liberal colleges here that attract students that tend not to move back out of the state.

The old-time conservative Vermonters (like my in-laws) are VERY outnumbered.

One interesting thing is that even the conservative ones have a strong libertarian streak in them that sometimes surprises me. They aren’t conservatives like you find in the south, where there is more of a homogenous conservative/Christian/anti-gay/anti-abortion population.
It’s much more varied here - a self-described conservative up here may be fiscal only, or just a few of the above characteristics, or all of them, in varying combinations.

Thankfully they are almost all pro-gun, however (even the lefties here don’t seem to have problems with guns). One bright spot in an otherwise dismal political landscape.

LQ


29 posted on 04/07/2009 9:13:24 AM PDT by LizardQueen (The world is not out to get you, except in the sense that the world is out to get everyone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: FreepShop1
This is all according to the “New England Project” that the gays launched years ago as a springboard to national homo recognition.

Yep. Look for Maine, Rhode Island and New Hampshire to turn soon. New Hampshire is heartbreaking to me... NH was pretty solid a Red State not that long ago, but I think it's gone forever, no turning back. Too many Massachusetts voters migrated to NH (to escape high taxes no less), and have infected the state like a cancer.

It's only a matter of time that hubby and I are outta Connecticut for good. CT going gay was like the final nail in the coffin... the people had no vote over it, one activist judge decided it was "time to get with the times". The high taxes are killing us as well. Just a matter of time...

30 posted on 04/07/2009 9:14:46 AM PDT by nutmeg (DemocRATs: The party of tax cheats and other assorted crooks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Sparky

so why can’t the people in CT,OH over turn this if they do not want it and why are republicans in those states not making a fuss over this?


31 posted on 04/07/2009 9:15:06 AM PDT by manc (Marriage is between a man and a woman no sick queer sham--- end racism end affirmative action)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: nutmeg

Thanks for the ping!


32 posted on 04/07/2009 9:18:06 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: nutmeg

I tried for years to get my wife out of MA and then we were driving when we spotted two men pretending they were getting married and all these other men throwing confetti at them.

My turned to me and said I love mystae but you know how you have been bugging me for years to move south to FL

I said yea why
she replied well lets do it, this state is not what I grew up in

we now moved 5 years ago and I am so happy I got her out of that state along with my kids.
We now know that our vote is something, our tax money does not go to liberal agenda’s in the state and we helped to stop homo’s from getting married here in FL

Please all conservative who are against this get out of New England, it is not the place where you grew up

years later my wife thanks me for getting her out and said it was the best move she ever made


33 posted on 04/07/2009 9:19:18 AM PDT by manc (Marriage is between a man and a woman no sick queer sham--- end racism end affirmative action)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: wk4bush2004
"Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man. People were eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage up to the day Noah entered the ark. Then the flood came and destroyed them all."
34 posted on 04/07/2009 9:20:05 AM PDT by freedomwarrior998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wk4bush2004

The veto was poofterridden.


35 posted on 04/07/2009 9:21:13 AM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Barack Obama: in your guts, you know he's nuts!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

—The next step, BTW, is a federal lawsuit under the “full faith and credit” clause to require all states to recognize the gay marriages performed in those states where it is legal.—

And that’s why we need a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex “marriage.” Personally, I’d be willing to make a deal with the ‘rats in congress to the effect “we’ll let you put FOCA in the constitution if you give us a “one man/one woman marriage amendment”. I think the ‘rats would be happy to throw the pooves under the bus for a deal like that. Sure, it sucks having FOCA enshrined in the Constitution, but abortion is a fait accomplit—even if Roe v. Wade went the other way it still would be (with just a few more limitations). Same-sex “marriage” is far more corrosive to the cohesivenss of the family structure than anything else imaginable.


36 posted on 04/07/2009 9:21:48 AM PDT by seatrout (I wouldn't know most "American Idol" winners if I tripped over them!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: wk4bush2004

NOW can we clearly state the Federal Marriage Amendment is required.

Full Faith and Credit attacks are now a certaintly and it only takes ONE kook judge to force this on the whole country.


37 posted on 04/07/2009 9:23:18 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
And, IMO, they have a decent case under the Constitution.

You are wrong. The Full Faith and Credit Clause has never permitted one state to extend it's laws to the rest of the nation (See Nevada v. Hall.) Moreover, the Constitution specifically gives CONGRESS the right regulate under the Clause (which it has done so with the Defense of Marriage Act.)

Finally, there is a longstanding recognized public policy exception to the Full Faith and Credit Clause. There is a reason that the homosexual activists have desperately kept their cases out of Federal Court. They know that they will lose.

38 posted on 04/07/2009 9:24:51 AM PDT by freedomwarrior998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
Full Faith and Credit attacks are now a certaintly and it only takes ONE kook judge to force this on the whole country.

Not quite. District Court opinions are not binding precedent. Circuit Court Decisions are binding only in the Circuit in which they are issued. It will take a decision of the Supreme Court to have the effect that you state.

39 posted on 04/07/2009 9:26:25 AM PDT by freedomwarrior998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: seatrout

You say we need an amendment.

I need a billion dollar bailout.

My wish is just about as likely to be fulfilled as yours.

When we can’t even elect a majority in Congress, how in the h*ll are we going to get an amendment passed, something at least 10x more difficult?


40 posted on 04/07/2009 9:27:35 AM PDT by Sherman Logan (Everyone has a right to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: wk4bush2004

Simply boycott the states that allow the deviants to gain power over the asylum.


41 posted on 04/07/2009 9:28:05 AM PDT by Neoliberalnot ((Freedom's Precious Metals: Gold, Silver and Lead))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wk4bush2004

For anyone that believes the gays three main talking points,(it won’t be taught in schools,it won’t affect anyone else,it won’t affect churches or private organizations),here’s a few eye-opening links.(And there’s plenty more where these came from!)

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/11/MNFG13F1VG.DTL

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54683

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54708

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46945

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54420

http://www. undergroundjournal. net/igroops/theunderground/adminpages/Its-1984-In-Massachusett

http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/print/9720/

http://www.sovo.com/2008/8-1/news/localnews/8943.cfm

http://mainstreamiowan.blogspot.com/2007/07/lesbian-couple-sues-methodist-owned.html

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/dec/07120306.html


42 posted on 04/07/2009 9:29:46 AM PDT by massmike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: newgeezer

Misery loves company.


43 posted on 04/07/2009 9:31:30 AM PDT by DungeonMaster (I can reach across the aisle without even using my sights.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

Like I said, propose a trade, FOCA for One Man/One Woman; the passage of one being contingent on the passage of the other.


44 posted on 04/07/2009 9:32:57 AM PDT by seatrout (I wouldn't know most "American Idol" winners if I tripped over them!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: seatrout

Um, what? Banning gay marriage between consenting adults is so important that we should enshrine the slaughter of innocents in our Constitution? What kind of sense does that make? The trade you suggest is sick.


45 posted on 04/07/2009 9:35:47 AM PDT by NinoFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: massmike

http://www.undergroundjournal.net/igroops/theunderground/adminpages/Its-1984-In-Massachusett


46 posted on 04/07/2009 9:36:11 AM PDT by massmike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: kabumpo

Here’s what happened! Vermont’s Dairy Farms: 1947-11,206 farms to 2003-1,459 farms and probably less now with up to date 2009 data.


47 posted on 04/07/2009 9:38:29 AM PDT by golf lover
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
They are already challenging Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), and have a pretty good case:
. . . The target is the Defense of Marriage Act, passed by Congress in 1996, which prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriage. That law denies federal benefits, like Social Security survivors’ payments, to spouses in such marriages. . . . .

The suit, to be filed in Federal District Court in Boston, does not challenge a separate provision of the act that says states do not have to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.

. . . In our view, it’s a straightforward equal-protection issue,” said Mary L. Bonauto, civil rights project director for the [Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders], referring to the constitutional mandate that laws be applied equally to everyone. . . .

While the Government Accountability Office has identified more than 1,100 federal statutory provisions in which marital status is a factor in rights and benefits, the suit focuses narrowly on equal protection as applied to Social Security, federal income tax, federal employees and retirees, and the issuance of passports.


48 posted on 04/07/2009 9:39:40 AM PDT by zaphod3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: manc
Please all conservative who are against this get out of New England, it is not the place where you grew up

My husband and I are seriously considering moving to FL (or another Red State) for mostly the same reasons (liberal agenda, high taxes, gay state, etc.) More sunshine per day and warmer weather (snow plow bills, heating bills, snow tires) would be nice as well. We can't just abandon our life and certain family members up here yet, though... it will take a few years.

Do you think FL will remain a mostly-red state? I was really dismayed to see FL turn blue during the last election. Hubby and I were in FL last month for nearly 2 weeks... we were stunned to see so many Obama stickers on FL cars. :-(

49 posted on 04/07/2009 9:40:21 AM PDT by nutmeg (DemocRATs: The party of tax cheats and other assorted crooks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: NinoFan

—Banning gay marriage between consenting adults is so important —

Yes. Abortion has always been with us EVEN WHEN IT WAS ILLEGAL. Even during the 50s it was somewhere in the six-figures (exact estimates are impossible since it was illegal virtually everywhere). But same-sex “marriage” will turn the marital institution into a laughinstock—it has already done so in Western Europe. If two people of the same sex can “marry”, young people will say, then what’s the point of marriage. They’ll see it as a pointless exercise; less work to just “shack up.”


50 posted on 04/07/2009 9:42:26 AM PDT by seatrout (I wouldn't know most "American Idol" winners if I tripped over them!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-158 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