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

Skip to comments.

Fed judge: [Federal] Gay marriage ban unconstitutional
AP (via MSNBC) ^ | 07/08/2010 | Denise Lavoie

Posted on 07/08/2010 2:09:02 PM PDT by Pyro7480

A U.S. judge in Boston has ruled that a federal gay marriage ban is unconstitutional because it interferes with the right a state to define marriage.

U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro on Thursday ruled in favor of gay couples' rights in two separate challenges to the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act.

The state had argued the law denied benefits such as Medicaid to gay married couples in Massachusetts, where same-sex unions have been legal since 2004.

Tauro agreed, and said the act forces Massachusetts to discriminate against its own citizens....

(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; US: California; US: Massachusetts
KEYWORDS: activistjudges; california; communism; constitution; gaymarriage; homosexualagenda; judge; marriage; massachusetts; moralabsolutes; prop8; roadtosocialism; romney; samesexmarriage; savethefamily
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-117 next last
I can see this decision splitting conservatives due to the way it was decided, but regardless, this ruling advances of the agenda of the left.
1 posted on 07/08/2010 2:09:06 PM PDT by Pyro7480
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480

Given the judge’s name, it is fitting that his decision is 100% Bull.


2 posted on 07/08/2010 2:12:18 PM PDT by AuH2ORepublican (If a politician won't protect innocent babies, what makes you think that he'll protect your rights?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480

Gaystapo trying to move the culture wars.


3 posted on 07/08/2010 2:16:16 PM PDT by Drango (A liberal's compassion is limited only by the size of someone else's wallet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480

Doesn’t federal law trump state law, when those laws don’t agree?

That was certainly the legal framework with civil rights era challenges to Jim Crow laws in the south.

Clearly this judge thinks that “states rights” is the most important issue. He is saying that the federal government is not allowed to define marriage.


4 posted on 07/08/2010 2:16:44 PM PDT by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480

Nixon appointee.. was a Judge in the midst of mental healthcare reform in Massachusetts..

Tauro, Joseph Louis

Born 1931 in Winchester, MA

Federal Judicial Service:
Judge, U. S. District Court, District of Massachusetts
Nominated by Richard M. Nixon on September 12, 1972, to a seat vacated by Francis J. W. Ford; Confirmed by the Senate on October 12, 1972, and received commission on October 17, 1972. Served as chief judge, 1992-1999.

Education:
Brown University, A.B., 1953
Cornell Law School, LL.B., 1956

Professional Career:
U.S. Army First Lieutenant, 1956-1958
Assistant U.S. attorney, District of Massachusetts, 1959-1960
Private practice, Boston and Lynn, Massachusetts, 1960-1971
Chief legal counsel to the governor of Massachusetts, 1965-1968
U.S. Attorney for the District of Massachusetts, 1972

Race or Ethnicity: White

Gender: Male


5 posted on 07/08/2010 2:16:56 PM PDT by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi ... Godspeed .. Monthly Donor Onboard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AuH2ORepublican
He's a Nixon appointee. From http://www.mad.uscourts.gov/boston/tauro.htm:

JOSEPH L. TAURO has served as a Judge of the United States District Court since 1972. He was elevated to the position of Chief Judge in January 1992 and served in that capacity until January 1999. His public service prior to being appointed to the bench included that as United States Attorney for Massachusetts, Chief Legal Counsel to the Governor of Massachusetts, and two years in the Army as a Nike Guided Missile Officer.

A graduate of Brown University and of the Cornell Law School, Judge Tauro practiced law for a number of years with his own firm, and is admitted to the Bar Associations of Massachusetts and the District of Columbia. He was a Visiting Professor of Law at the Boston University School of Law, and is a trustee of Brown University. For many years, Judge Tauro served as a trustee of The Children’s Hospital Medical Center in Boston, as well as of the Massachusetts General Hospital. He has been a member of the Judicial Conference of the United States, and has served on the Judicial Conference Committees on Codes of Conduct, as well as The Jury System.

Judge Tauro has received honorary degrees from Brown University, Boston University, Northeastern University, Suffolk University, The University of Massachusetts, and the New England School of Law. He has also received the Cornell Law School Distinguished Alumnus Award, the Brown University Brown Bear Award, the Massachusetts Bar Association Hennessey Leadership Award, and the Boston Bar Association Citation of Judicial Excellence.

Judge Tauro’s family includes his wife, three children and six grandchildren.

6 posted on 07/08/2010 2:16:58 PM 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 2 | View Replies]

To: Drango

Gaystapo;

Now there is a catchy title for Homo-Leninists.


7 posted on 07/08/2010 2:19:10 PM PDT by ntmxx (I am not so sure about this misdirection!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480

Isn’t medicaid a federal program? Then the federal definition should apply.


8 posted on 07/08/2010 2:19:32 PM PDT by John O (God Save America (Please))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480

If Kagan was Solicitor for this case, she would be forced to recuse herself from the case once it got to the Supreme Court.

This would take away one gay vote on the Supreme Court.

This *could* be a very favorable thing.


9 posted on 07/08/2010 2:21:46 PM PDT by earlJam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480

Isn’t medicaid a federal program? Then the federal definition should apply.

(sorry for the double)

The sad thing about this is that if the DOMA gets overturned this way then the faggots will get married in Mass. and then try to bring their perversion to our states and claim to be married.

Maybe we should just shoot them as they invade our borders. (Sorry, topic jumped to illegal aliens. But on second thought it would be a great deterrant in this case also)


10 posted on 07/08/2010 2:22:04 PM PDT by John O (God Save America (Please))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480

Does this mean that the gay activists will accept the right of each state to define marriage?

If we’re saying that the federal government cannot legally define marriage, then will the liberals leave the 45 states which don’t allow homosexual marriage alone?

Next step will be a federal appeals court, and eventually the U.S. Supreme Court.

An openly homosexual judge is considering a federal challenge to California’s Proposition 8 as we speak. He will probably rule that California has no right to define marriage, so in that case, he will say that a state does not have the right to define marriage.

So which is it, do states have a right to define marriage or not? Does any level of government have the right to define marriage? Are liberal leaning judges doing to define marriage; is no other legal process to do so permitted? Do judges have all the wisdom in the world to make these decisions?

Legally speaking, they are creating a legal mess of marriage and family law. The U.S. Supreme Court will have to resolve it someday.


11 posted on 07/08/2010 2:24:07 PM PDT by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480
A U.S. judge in Boston has ruled

LMAO!!!
Massachusetts, land of "Fisting for Fifth Graders".
I suspect this judge Joseph Tauro has had his share of little boys.

12 posted on 07/08/2010 2:25:00 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480
Wait a minute here. Arizona writes a law and the Feds challenge it. The Feds write a law and the state challenges it. Something isn't right here.
13 posted on 07/08/2010 2:29:52 PM PDT by skimask
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego
Clearly this judge thinks that “states rights” is the most important issue. He is saying that the federal government is not allowed to define marriage.

There's no connection. States can do pretty much what they want with the way they deal with sodomites, but for its own purposes the federal government doesn't have to recognize individual state laws. It's not even clear to me why this scumbag judge got involved in the first place.

14 posted on 07/08/2010 2:30:03 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego
He is saying that the federal government is not allowed to define marriage.

The Federal government only has the authority to do things within the reasonable ("necessary and proper") scope of the powers it is explicitly granted by the Constitution. The Constitution grants no power to define marriage, nor to regulate who may be married.

15 posted on 07/08/2010 2:35:22 PM PDT by sourcery (Government should be as powerless as possible, while still able to protect individual rights)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: AuH2ORepublican

It may well be the case that Judge Joseph Tauro can’t quite define it but Fur Shur everybody in the country now knows what he likes eh!


16 posted on 07/08/2010 2:42:08 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego
...then will the liberals leave the 45 states which don’t allow homosexual marriage alone?

Not a chance.

17 posted on 07/08/2010 2:43:06 PM PDT by prairiebreeze (We don't have a leader in the Oval Office, we have a reader in the Oval Office.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: earlJam
"If Kagan was Solicitor for this case, she would be forced to recuse herself from the case once it got to the Supreme Court."

Forced by who? The corrupt thugs in the Obama administration? No way Jose...and don't count on it. Only conservative judges are forced to recuse themselves in an Obamanation.

18 posted on 07/08/2010 2:46:34 PM PDT by XenaLee (The only good commie is a dead commie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480
Only a Constitutional Amendment can stop this.

As currently constructed, the Constitution, if correctly interpreted (plain language meaning) can only force the legalization of "gay marriage".

19 posted on 07/08/2010 2:48:36 PM PDT by Mariner (USS Tarawa, VQ3, USS Benjamin Stoddert, NAVCAMS WestPac, 7th Fleet, Navcommsta Puget Sound)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480
Homosexuals have all but won the war, yet they keep pushing.

It sort of reminds me of MacArthur in the Korean war. He had pushed the North Koreans back over their border, but that was not enough, he kept going to the Chinese Border. (It is more complicated then that but this after all just an analogy).

He was surprised when several “million” screaming Chinese started heading south. Not to carry an analogy too far, there may come a time when middle America will feel threaten enough they will begin to fight back.

Not literally but figuratively. Since the courts are not inclined to defend America then perhaps a Constitutional Amendment is needed saying that a marriage is between one man and one woman (with the state setting the age of consent).

Only 38 States are required to ratify an amendment and I think there are at least 38 that would do so.

The same can be said for all the hot button issues.

I am old enough to remember a time guns could be order from Sears, the Winter Holiday was Christmas and Jesus was celebrated in the school and school pageant's, and when abortions were illegal.

A lot of the changes within our society have been brought about by the misinterpretation of the Constitution. Simple amendments that restate what the founding fathers had in mind would go a long way to correcting the movement to the left.

20 posted on 07/08/2010 2:51:12 PM PDT by CIB-173RDABN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sourcery

Are you saying that the government cannot define the terms it uses in the laws it enacts?


21 posted on 07/08/2010 2:51:17 PM PDT by Jacquerie (Great nations are born Stoic and die Epicurean.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480

“A U.S. judge in Boston has ruled that a federal gay marriage ban is unconstitutional because it interferes with the right a state to define marriage. “

Liberals, in this instance, at this particular point in time, are for States rights.

But in the Arizona case... not so much.

Once marriage is no longer defined by law, marry your kids to avoid inheritance taxes.

That will wake the dems up!


22 posted on 07/08/2010 2:54:48 PM PDT by NoLibZone (Liberals are right. The AZ situation is like Nazi Germany. Mexico is Germany and Arizona is Poland)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480
This is just nipping at the heels of marriage.

The true move will be the removal of Don't ask Don't tell.

Once the military starts to give "partners" medical care, death benefits and on base housing, the courts will declare the military has set a precident of recognizing gay marriage.

They will use our own military against us to reset social "norms"......

23 posted on 07/08/2010 3:01:08 PM PDT by Kakaze (Exterminate Islamofacism and apologize for nothing....except not doing it sooner!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480
and here i thought it was defined by the Church...
24 posted on 07/08/2010 3:02:04 PM PDT by Chode (American Hedonist *DTOM* -ww- NO Pity for the LAZY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NoLibZone

>Once marriage is no longer defined by law, marry your kids to avoid inheritance taxes.

Oh, I hadn’t herd that one!


25 posted on 07/08/2010 3:08:14 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480
What nonsense. The government not only can, but must decide the requirements necessary to receive benefits. It must also define the terms used in the laws. Whenever “marriage” appears in fed law, it refers to man/woman. Sheesh.

The jerk judge is blowing smoke with his 10th, 5th Amendments and Due Process clause non-argument.

26 posted on 07/08/2010 3:17:02 PM PDT by Jacquerie (We live in a judicial tyranny - Mark Levin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480

Oh, I see. The states have rights to support homosexual marriage but they can’t pass and enforce immigration laws to protect their people and property.

Two and a half years more of this insanity. I don’t believe the United States can survive.


27 posted on 07/08/2010 3:19:26 PM PDT by Know et al (Spill chock want ketch awl yore miss takes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480

The guy is 79 years old, he won’t have to be around to deal with the consequences of his decision.


28 posted on 07/08/2010 3:25:42 PM PDT by ikka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

*


29 posted on 07/08/2010 3:25:52 PM PDT by TornadoAlley3 (Obama is everything Oklahoma is not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480
"I can see this decision splitting conservatives due to the way it was decided, but regardless, this ruling advances of the agenda of the left. "

Yes, and yes. When DOMA was first passed, I presumed that it would eventually run into problems with judicial review, especially on a couple of the points of law cited by the judge. While this is only a single District Court decision, I think it foretells of DOMA's eventual fate.

The only way to cure this problem is with a constitutional amendment, and the chances of that happening are slim to none.

30 posted on 07/08/2010 3:26:10 PM PDT by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sourcery

There’s no need to define “marriage” any more than there’s a need to define “day” and “night”.


31 posted on 07/08/2010 3:26:27 PM PDT by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480

Caca del Tauro


32 posted on 07/08/2010 3:26:35 PM PDT by windsorknot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Know et al

Well, they have the right to SUPPORT homo ‘marriage’, but they have NO RIGHT to oppose it.

What is not prohibited is mandatory.


33 posted on 07/08/2010 3:31:01 PM PDT by ichabod1 (Hitler Was Their Fate and their Fate Could Not Be Stayed. Von Braustitch.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: sourcery
Reynolds wants to have a word with you.
34 posted on 07/08/2010 3:36:40 PM PDT by BenKenobi (I want to hear more about Sam! Samwise the stouthearted!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

Reynolds says that the states do not have the right to change the definition of marriage. Sauce for Utah is sauce for Massachusetts.

They can change the specifics, ie, age of amrriage, etc, but they cannot change the definition.


35 posted on 07/08/2010 3:38:15 PM PDT by BenKenobi (I want to hear more about Sam! Samwise the stouthearted!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi
"Reynolds says that the states do not have the right to change the definition of marriage."

Are you talking about the Reynolds v. US case from the late 19th century about Mormonism and polygamy? If so - and I haven't read that case in probably 30ish years - didn't the central legal argument in that case have to do with 1st Amendment rights and using those rights as a defense of some criminal act - the act in this instance, polygamy?

I'm not sure how instructive that case will be hear, since they are based in two entirely separate legal principles. Maybe you're referring to a separate case?

36 posted on 07/08/2010 3:48:03 PM PDT by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

OK, so does this means the full faith and credit clause will kick in?


37 posted on 07/08/2010 3:55:26 PM PDT by MSF BU (++)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

Nope. Reread the case. They argue that the federal government has the obligation to recognise marriage as between a man and a woman.

They go on to argue that a state deviating from this principle would result in anarchy.

They also argue that marriage is older than the common law, and that the common law cannot change marriage.


38 posted on 07/08/2010 4:02:26 PM PDT by BenKenobi (I want to hear more about Sam! Samwise the stouthearted!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: MSF BU
"OK, so does this means the full faith and credit clause will kick in?"

That's a wholly different conversation from what the facts and principles are in this case, which does not address in DOMA the provision that allows states to ignore homosexual marriages granted in other states.

Eventually though, I'm sure a case with the relevant and material set of circumstances will be litigated over questions of that particular provision in DOMA, but this case won't be material to that case, in any way.

39 posted on 07/08/2010 4:07:07 PM PDT by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi
'Nope. Reread the case."

Well first, when you say "the case", are you referring to Reynolds v. United States (circa 1870s)?

And again, I haven't read the case in a very long time, but remember what is discussed in dicta is wholly separate from the legal holding (and binding) element of the decision. Dicta can be read (or ignored) as persuasive precedent.

40 posted on 07/08/2010 4:09:48 PM PDT by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: ntmxx; Drango

>>Now there is a catchy title

More than just a catchy title:

http://www.defendthefamily.com/pfrc/books/pinkswastika/html/the_pinkswastika_4th_edition_-_final.htm


41 posted on 07/08/2010 4:10:34 PM PDT by LomanBill (Animals! The DemocRats blew up the windmill with an Acorn!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ForGod'sSake; wagglebee; AdmSmith; Berosus; bigheadfred; blueyon; Convert from ECUSA; dervish; ...
States rights ping. :') Keyword prop8:
42 posted on 07/08/2010 4:13:26 PM PDT by SunkenCiv ("Fools learn from experience. I prefer to learn from the experience of others." -- Otto von Bismarck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480

will the same liberal judge also let states define marriage as one man and 10 women or a woman and her son.

nah course not , this is all about a perverted sick agenda which the far elft, commies and the gaystapo keep pushing


43 posted on 07/08/2010 4:18:45 PM PDT by manc (WILL OBAMA EVER GO TO CHURCH ON A SUNDAY OR WILL HE LET THE MEDIA/THE LEFT BE FOOLED FOR EVER)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John O; Squantos; Eaker
The sad thing about this is that if the DOMA gets overturned this way then the faggots will get married in Mass. and then try to bring their perversion to our states and claim to be married.

Maybe we should just shoot them as they invade our borders.

Hmmm. So tell me again why my carry permit isn't valid in Massachusetts, and my carbine isn't legal in California?

44 posted on 07/08/2010 4:20:44 PM PDT by glock rocks (Wait, what?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480

if a judge said this in Utah say then would the commies, far left loons, those who are too dumb and look for the letter D and homosexuals then be happy about the decision and then having one man and 4 women .?

I really hope some polygamists go to MA and try to have their marriage there, actually they should do and lets see the loons in MA speak for them too.

ARF


45 posted on 07/08/2010 4:23:27 PM PDT by manc (WILL OBAMA EVER GO TO CHURCH ON A SUNDAY OR WILL HE LET THE MEDIA/THE LEFT BE FOOLED FOR EVER)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480; 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.

Leftists resort to states' rights to push their agenda, but deny states' rights when opposed to conservative issues. This is not a states' rights issue anyway. It's a natural law issue. Leftists can say "water is dry, not wet" but it doesn't make it so.

46 posted on 07/08/2010 4:24:08 PM PDT by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie
Are you saying that the government cannot define the terms it uses in the laws it enacts?

I'm saying that the Federal government cannot Constitutionally enact laws regarding matters where it has no Constitutional power to act. Defining marriage is not a power granted to the Federal government by the Constitution. That power is reserved to the States.

The Federal govenment has no business making any laws that care one way or the other about a person's marital status. That's not properly a Federal issue, concern or responsibility!

47 posted on 07/08/2010 4:32:20 PM PDT by sourcery (Government should be as powerless as possible, while still able to protect individual rights)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: sourcery

The government not only can, but must decide the requirements necessary to receive Medicare benefits. It must also define the terms used in the laws. Whenever “marriage” appears in fed law, it refers to man/woman.

From DOMA: “In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ‘spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.”

It is preposterous to let judges define the terms used in federal law. It violates the very separation of powers defined in our Constitution to acquiesce.


48 posted on 07/08/2010 4:41:37 PM PDT by Jacquerie (We live in a judicial tyranny - Mark Levin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: sourcery

One of the founding planks of the GOP was the opposition of the admission of Utah as a territory as long as it practiced polygamy. The Federal gov’t forced Utah to ban polygamy before being allowed in a state. The Federal gov’t did not force Mass to drop gay marriage but stated that in terms of federal benefits and tax code gay marriages would not be recognized.


49 posted on 07/08/2010 4:43:02 PM PDT by C19fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie
Medicare is Unconstitutional, so that eliminates that issue. I challenge to find any Constitutional law where Congress has any Constitutional justification for using words such as "marriage" or "married" in the text of the law.
50 posted on 07/08/2010 4:44:31 PM PDT by sourcery (Government should be as powerless as possible, while still able to protect individual rights)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-117 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