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

Skip to comments.

Marriage Equality for All Couples (Cato Institute Chairman is pro-gay marriage)
Cato Institute ^ | 06/08/10 | Robert Levy & John Podesta

Posted on 06/13/2010 2:38:39 PM PDT by Recovering_Democrat

Nearly a century after the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, the Supreme Court unanimously affirmed that "marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man.' " That 1967 case, Loving v. Virginia, ended bans on interracial marriage in the 16 states that still had such laws.

Now, 43 years after Loving, the courts are once again grappling with denial of equal marriage rights — this time to gay couples. We believe that a society respectful of individual liberty must end this unequal treatment under the law.

(Excerpt) Read more at cato.org ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: cato; gay; homosexualagenda; libertarians; samesexmarriage
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-61 next last
Ahem.

My Constitution says the states and the people decide anything not given to the federal government.

So why is Cato taking an anti-libertarian position?

Ya know, folks, I like Cato working with John Stossel and pushing the ideas of Milton Friedman...but when they team up with liberals to endorse judicial activism from judges, it just makes me sick.

I'll keep donating to the Heritage Foundation, and maybe the Acton Institute.

1 posted on 06/13/2010 2:38:39 PM PDT by Recovering_Democrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat
Now, 43 years after Loving, the courts are once again grappling with denial of equal marriage rights...

This false claim is soooo old. Everyone has the same rights. The definition of marriage is one man and one woman. Everyone is equal under that definition. I can't marry someone of the same sex as myself, nor can I marry multiple people, nor can I marry an animal or whatever else someone might want to desire to change the definition to.

The debate isn't an equal rights issue, it's about allowing anyone who wishes to change the definition of words and institutions that have been in place for thousands of years across almost every culture. If the definition of marriage is going to be changed who gets to saw what it's going to be? If every possible permutation of association will be recognized as marriage then there is no such thing as marriage.

Just the other day there was an article about some guy in Japan who married his pillow. Again, who gets to decide that definitions will be changed and if so what they'll be changed to? And if they are changed, why not keep changing them every 6 months to add new permutations?

2 posted on 06/13/2010 2:45:29 PM PDT by highlander_UW (Education is too important to leave in the hands of the government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat

When gay couples can breed without help from a turkey baster or stand in Vagina, I will agree to gay marriagfe.


3 posted on 06/13/2010 2:46:11 PM PDT by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat

Homosexuality is a behavior, not an identity.
By allowing this purposeful distortion of meaning we already partially lose the argument as we have allowed dishonest people to frame the debate.


4 posted on 06/13/2010 2:47:49 PM PDT by IrishCatholic (No local Communist or Socialist Party Chapter? Join the Democrats, it's the same thing!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat

Government embraces marriage because it tends to secure stable homes for nurturing the children that the couples’ copulation produces.

There is no basis to embrace homosexual pretend-marriages because such homes are never stable and such coupling can never produce children.

It is easy to figure this out. In fact, it is obvious to all.


5 posted on 06/13/2010 2:48:26 PM PDT by Notwithstanding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat

John Podesta!! Give me a break.


6 posted on 06/13/2010 2:51:21 PM PDT by La Lydia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat

OK so two of the same sex can marry? Why not 2 siblings, multiple partners, a man and a goat? Once we remove the definition of marriage everythings fair game and only a judge’s opinion determines what’s legit.


7 posted on 06/13/2010 2:52:44 PM PDT by RedStateGuyTrappedinCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat
Our civilization has thoroughly forgotten by now that marriage is about procreation and child-rearing. This does not even enter the discussion now.
8 posted on 06/13/2010 2:57:21 PM PDT by TopQuark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat
the Supreme Court unanimously affirmed that "marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man.' "

Then why does one need a license to exercise that right? One does not need a license to exercise a right.

9 posted on 06/13/2010 3:00:39 PM PDT by old republic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat

Once again, if the pro same sex “marriage” people can explain how two people of the same sex can join together as husband and wife, I will also support it as well. Until such time as this can be demonstrated, it is not possible for it to exist.


10 posted on 06/13/2010 3:01:32 PM PDT by Republican Wildcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat; Notwithstanding; IrishCatholic; highlander_UW
One of the many oddities in this very odd situation, is the utter lack of evidence that anybody has ever been denied the right to marry because they were gay.

Throughout history, many--- I daresay, most --- gay people married. Oscar Wilde was married to Constance Lloyd, and they had two sons, Cyril (1885) and Vyvyan (1886). The Episocopal bishop in New Hampshire, the Rev. Gene Robinson, was married and likewise had two children with his wife. New Jersey governor Jim McGreeey married twice and had children with both of his wives, before he famously announced he was gay.

Has any gay person ever been discriminated against and forbidden by law to marry?

If it's ever happened, I'd be interested in hearing about it.

11 posted on 06/13/2010 3:03:38 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o ("God bless the child who's got his own." Arthur Herzog Jr./Billie Holiday)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat

It is the same problem, Libertarians has no moral sense.


12 posted on 06/13/2010 3:03:53 PM PDT by bmwcyle (Communism has arrived in Washington)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: highlander_UW

Right - the debate is not about ‘equality’ it is about ‘reality.’ Two people of the same sex cannot join together as husband and wife - that requires one person to be a man and the other to be a woman. It has nothing to do with “hate” or “discrimination” - it is just the reality.


13 posted on 06/13/2010 3:05:12 PM PDT by Republican Wildcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat

I’m no Bible thumper but I think I’ll put my trust in 5000+ years of Judeo/Christian religion and civilization. Rather than what some anally fixated idiots just cooked up. Gays of 30 years ago where not so bold and in yo face.

So no to gay marriage and no on drug legalization...they seem to go together


14 posted on 06/13/2010 3:06:22 PM PDT by dennisw (History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid - Gen Eisenhower)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat

Cato (and for that matter Heritage) also support “Road Pricing” where government tracks your driving and then sends you a bill for using their roads, based on where you drove, how far you drove, and when you drove - beginning the moment you leave your driveway. I suppose they’d be ok if the charges also factored in what you drove, how much you made, how many kids you have...

I TOTALLY fail to see why they have such a big problem with the gas tax and want to replace it with a tracking system that Orwell could only dream of.


15 posted on 06/13/2010 3:06:32 PM PDT by BobL (The whole point of being human is knowing when the party's over.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat

He sites Loving but people are born black, white, or whatever. There exists no genetic evidence that people are born gay. If a gay gene were to exist, given the availability of abortion in this day and age, would queers immediately become pro-life?


16 posted on 06/13/2010 3:08:44 PM PDT by Grunthor (Getting married, T minus 13 days.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BobL

That doesn’t sound libertarian to me.


17 posted on 06/13/2010 3:11:18 PM PDT by darkangel82 (I don't have a superiority complex, I'm just better than you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat

Cato just jumped the shark.


18 posted on 06/13/2010 3:11:46 PM PDT by WashingtonSource
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: highlander_UW

There aren’t enough letters in the word “BINGO” to express how strongly I agree.


19 posted on 06/13/2010 3:13:06 PM PDT by Julia H. (Freedom of speech and freedom from criticism are mutually exclusive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: highlander_UW

It’s as silly as saying a man is denied equal rights as a woman because he’s barred from the women’s bathroom.


20 posted on 06/13/2010 3:16:43 PM PDT by Truthsearcher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat
The reason libertarianism is a consistent political failure is that the advocates all seem to have stupid spots in their brains, which light up at exactly the wrong times.

This is one of those times.

21 posted on 06/13/2010 3:16:47 PM PDT by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dennisw
Women should be very worried. Dennis Prager quote:

Societies that did not place boundaries around sexuality were stymied in their development. The subsequent dominance of the Western world can largely be attributed to the sexual revolution initiated by Judaism and later carried forward by Christianity.

This revolution consisted of forcing the sexual genie into the marital bottle. It ensured that sex no longer dominated society, heightened male-female love and sexuality (and thereby almost alone created the possibility of love and eroticism within marriage), and began the arduous task of elevating the status of women. (snip)

22 posted on 06/13/2010 3:17:23 PM PDT by donna (The fruits of Feminism: Angry fathers, bitter mothers, fat kids and political correctness.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
That’s it. What their argument is, essentially, is that they have the right to change the definition of marriage to be the union of one person and anyone or anything that person wants to claim as a spouse. And their rationale is that they “love” that person/persons/animal/object. Well, sorry but that is just not reasonable.
23 posted on 06/13/2010 3:19:46 PM PDT by highlander_UW (Education is too important to leave in the hands of the government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: BobL

“That doesn’t sound libertarian to me.”

Certainly not - but they look at it the way most of us looked at Communism the first time, and then quickly outgrew.

They see an ideal road pricing scheme as the end of traffic jams and, ideally, having exactly the same traffic at 4 AM as 4 PM...if you set the incentives right.

That’s all fine and dandy (just like the equality of Communism), but getting there is the hard part - and is spreading out the traffic better for a society than building more highway lanes? I don’t think so - I don’t want to be dropping off junior at school at 1AM and then go to work at 3 PM to help them with their glorious quest.


24 posted on 06/13/2010 3:20:48 PM PDT by BobL (The whole point of being human is knowing when the party's over.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: hinckley buzzard

The reason libertarianism is a political failure is because the main motivation for the “movement” is “I want what I want, and I want everyone to leave me alone”.

Political movements are built by selfless true believers who are willing to sacrifice to see it through. If the only reason you’re part of a movement is self-interest, the minute you face difficult opposition that requires much work to over come, the inconvenience of it offsets what you hoped to gain and you give up.


25 posted on 06/13/2010 3:21:24 PM PDT by Truthsearcher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: donna

“Women should be very worried. Dennis Prager quote:

Societies that did not place boundaries around sexuality were stymied in their development. The subsequent dominance of the Western world can largely be attributed to the sexual revolution initiated by Judaism and later carried forward by Christianity.

This revolution consisted of forcing the sexual genie into the marital bottle. It ensured that sex no longer dominated society, heightened male-female love and sexuality (and thereby almost alone created the possibility of love and eroticism within marriage), and began the arduous task of elevating the status of women. (snip) “

AWESOME. When you think of the Pacific Island societies, for example - they simply stalled dead in their tracks, with this Cato lifestyle.


26 posted on 06/13/2010 3:22:35 PM PDT by BobL (The whole point of being human is knowing when the party's over.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat

If the government can prohibit the marriage of minors, close relatives, and multiple partners, it can prohibit the “marriage” of same-sex couples. There is no “unequal application of the law” here. All men — regardless of sexual orientation — are prohibited from marrying other men. As are all women from marrying other women.


27 posted on 06/13/2010 3:24:05 PM PDT by IronJack (=)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat
If Cato is bedding down with John Podesta, who is the de facto architect of the Obama administration...Lord, help us.

Two gay people can already form legal constructs identical to marriage. They just have to hire a lawyer to do it. And when they want a "divorce" they'll hire lawyers again.

This fervent desire to "marry" is bogus. It's an attempt to force gestures of validation from those who disapprove of homosexuality.

Hey, Cato, do we no longer have the freedom to disapprove?

28 posted on 06/13/2010 3:25:24 PM PDT by Mamzelle (Cameras, cameras--never forget to bring your cameras)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat

Seems to me the libertarian position would be to get the gov’t out of the institution of marriage, leaving it up to folks’ faiths. Gov’t involvement hasn’t been good for the institution of marriage, in my opinion. Like most thing gov’t is involved with, it eventually screwed it up.

Freegards


29 posted on 06/13/2010 3:29:19 PM PDT by Ransomed (Son of Ransomed Says Keep the Faith!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat

100% agree with you Recovering Democrat


30 posted on 06/13/2010 3:29:31 PM PDT by aumrl (let's keep it real Conservatives)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat

What is his stand on polygamists? Do they not have the same rights?

Not advocating for that, just trying to illustrate the ramifications of such reasoning.

Polyandy and Polyamorists, too, should be allowed to “marry” according to his logic. Also adult relatives.


31 posted on 06/13/2010 3:31:38 PM PDT by Persevero (Replace Howard Dean with Alvin Greene!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IrishCatholic
Homosexuality is a behavior, not an identity.

It is a behavior that is destructive to the family unit, demeans the relationship between a man and woman which unites the sexes and gives their baby the natural right to be raised by a biological mother and biological father.

It should not be promoted by government because it goes against Natural Law....which our country is based on. I would say it is unconstitutional because as Cicero said thousands of years ago.......Laws that go against Natural Law are unjust. It is that simple.

Homosexuality is sexist....eliminates the need for the opposite sex, so it is discriminatory besides being unnatural. Homosexuals are sexist bigots and intolerant and are trying to make hate speech laws that silence Christians and other people of true faith or rewrite the Bible.

Our Bill of Rights gives us freedom of religion and the homosexuals are destroying our rights to raise moral, religious children because they force "tolerance" (sin pride) in the public schools which is nothing but indoctrination into that lifestyle. It is unnatural and has to be learned by grooming young boys into the lifestyle so they become confused about their sexual identity and morality. It is a learned behavior. It goes hand in hand with child abuse--don't be fooled.

32 posted on 06/13/2010 3:39:51 PM PDT by savagesusie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: highlander_UW
This false claim is soooo old. Everyone has the same rights. The definition of marriage is one man and one woman. Everyone is equal under that definition. I can't marry someone of the same sex as myself, nor can I marry multiple people, nor can I marry an animal or whatever else someone might want to desire to change the definition to.

Loving v. Virginia was about anti-miscegenation laws. Such laws were ruled to be a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, because such laws were about a status. You can't realistically change your race (Michael Jackson was never realistic about anything), but you can choose with whom you want to have sex (subject to the other person's consent).

If gay marriage is permitted nationwide, marriage will become a joke. The polygamists will call for legalization of plural marriages and they will easily win. At that point whole groups of people will marry one another for the government benefits (imagine a marriage consisting of 24 men and women). After that, State governments will save money by ceasing to recognize any marriage.

That's the point of all of this. They want to destroy marriage by making it a cultural joke and removing its special place in the law.

33 posted on 06/13/2010 3:39:58 PM PDT by Repeal 16-17 (Let me know when the Shooting starts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat
Why is CATO so stacked with these "couples" bigots?

What's wrong with a good old-fashioned marriage of one guy and 50 to 100 women?

34 posted on 06/13/2010 3:44:42 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat

The purpose of marriage is to encourage and promote safe home lives for kids. Nothing more. Since when to gay adults need that?


35 posted on 06/13/2010 3:48:04 PM PDT by Tax Government (Don't vote commie unless you ask your mommy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ransomed
Gov’t involvement hasn’t been good for the institution of marriage

Civil Marriage has been the greatest invention of the last millennium! It has ensured that women and children, abandoned by unscrupulous men, are able to avail themselves of a legal, governmental resolution mechanism without resorting to familial retribution or falling into destitution. By providing legal protection of inheritance rights it has prevented much premeditated sexual/financial fraud and abuse within society. It's stabilizing force exerted on modern family life may very well be a major source of the economic growth of the last 500 years!

36 posted on 06/13/2010 3:54:09 PM PDT by cartoonistx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: cartoonistx

Many folks see it as just another lousy government contract that can be broken and resumed as long as government says so. Also, many seem to be conditioned think that marriage comes from the govenment, to the point they easily accept impossibilities like “gay marriage” as long as the governmnet says it can exist.

Do you think a piece of paper from the gov’t makes two people married? Who is more married, a man and a woman who are married in their faith or two men with a piece of paper from the government?

If marriage was controlled by folk’s faiths, I don’t think that so many would accept the impossibility of “gay marriage” today.

Freegards


37 posted on 06/13/2010 4:19:26 PM PDT by Ransomed (Son of Ransomed Says Keep the Faith!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat

Ditto. Perhaps there is a reason that Washington insiders call it the Gayto Institute. I used to go to excellent lunchtime lectures, but it’s been at least fifteen years since I last went.


38 posted on 06/13/2010 4:33:30 PM PDT by crusher (Political Correctness: Stalinism Without the Charm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: crusher
Perhaps there is a reason that Washington insiders call it the Gayto Institute.

FWIW the only person I've ever known to work there "plays for the other team", as we used to say.

Has CATO been absorbed by the gay borg?

39 posted on 06/13/2010 4:48:45 PM PDT by NativeNewYorker (Freepin' Jew Boy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: BobL

AWESOME. When you think of the Pacific Island societies, for example - they simply stalled dead in their tracks, with this Cato lifestyle.>>>>>>>>>>>

Thor Heyerdahl and his wife moved to a small Pacific Island and found out how screwed up it was. They left what they had thought would be a utopia for them for a few years. Heyerdahl wrote a book about it


40 posted on 06/13/2010 4:50:45 PM PDT by dennisw (History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid - Gen Eisenhower)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

Actually, there is far more historical precedent for polygamy than there is for same-sex marriage.


41 posted on 06/13/2010 4:58:22 PM PDT by friendly_doc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Truthsearcher

Unfortunately, what you think is silly is just what they argue for. There is no end to it with these people...


42 posted on 06/13/2010 5:11:43 PM PDT by achilles2000 (Shouting "fire" in a burning building is doing everyone a favor...whether they like it or not)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: dennisw

“Thor Heyerdahl and his wife moved to a small Pacific Island and found out how screwed up it was. They left what they had thought would be a utopia for them for a few years. Heyerdahl wrote a book about it.”

Interesting, I looked it up and it’s called “Fatu Hiva” and Thor learns a big lesson regarding turning into a nature-boy: It ain’t fun. Something that our present government is trying to do to our society, and will have the same results.

And by the way, I think he got out of there just before the Japanese started moving out - would have even been a bigger lesson for him.


43 posted on 06/13/2010 5:24:05 PM PDT by BobL (The whole point of being human is knowing when the party's over.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat; All

Looks like the gay mafia has taken over the CATO Institute.


44 posted on 06/13/2010 5:26:29 PM PDT by o2bfree (This president is giving me a headache!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ransomed

If people were controlled by their faith we wouldn’t need divorce courts, civil marriage or government for that matter. And if the Good Lord would just let us back into the Garden of Eden we wouldn’t need clothes!


45 posted on 06/13/2010 5:27:23 PM PDT by cartoonistx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat; 185JHP; AFA-Michigan; Abathar; Agitate; Albion Wilde; AliVeritas; Antoninus; ..
Homosexual Agenda Ping

Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.

Be sure to click the FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search link for a list of all related articles. We don't ping you to all related articles so be sure to click the previous link to see the latest articles.

Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.

Puke.

46 posted on 06/13/2010 5:33:16 PM PDT by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Truthsearcher

And not only that, but the entire libertarian philosophy claims that self-interest by definition supersedes any moral, societal, or ethical standards. See, for instance, their stance on “consensual crime” or their willingness to support abortion as long as no one’s “liberty” is infringed upon.


47 posted on 06/13/2010 5:45:27 PM PDT by sthguard (The DNC theme song: "All You Need is Guv")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat

Unfortunately when they start using loaded lofty terms like “equality for everyone” they leave the realm of honest debate. Of course everyone is equal in this country and everyone has the same right to marry — period. What they don’t have is the right to make new rules for marriage.

I say they are discriminating against me in California for not allowing me to live in love and happiness with a 50 caliber BMG rifle of my choosing. How dare anyone define what love is for me? I have a right to drive like every other adult, so why won’t they let me drive the way I love, in reverse on sidewalks at 80 mph?

If they want to make an argument for gay marriage they have every right to do so, but please spare us the specious “equality” argument.


48 posted on 06/13/2010 6:35:30 PM PDT by ElkGroveDan (Now can we forget about that old rum-runner Joe Kennedy and his progeny of philandering drunks?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: old republic

Exactly so! Marriage is not an ‘individual’ right. You cannot force someone to marry you.


49 posted on 06/13/2010 7:06:23 PM PDT by BenKenobi (I want to hear more about Sam! Samwise the stouthearted!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat
This is stupid for one simple reason - it relies on an entirely absurd premise, namely, that there is an equivalence between the effect of the old miscegenation laws - which made it illegal for persons of different races to even cohabit together under intimate circumstances - and the effect of existing marriage laws which simply do not treat a queer couple as being "married". The signal difference is this: there is not a single law in effect that prohibits queers from cohabiting as intimately as they wish to; as such, the old cases such as Loving v. Virginia are simply not applicable, for the very simple reason that they are distinguishable on their facts.


50 posted on 06/13/2010 7:10:58 PM PDT by Oceander (The Price of Freedom is Eternal Vigilance -- Thos. Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-61 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