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

Skip to comments.

Santorum says gay marriage signing not last word
Seattle Post Intelligencer ^ | 02/13/12 | Staff

Posted on 02/13/2012 5:41:39 PM PST by writer33

OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) — Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum says Washington state's new gay marriage law is not the final word in the debate.

Santorum said Monday that he is encouraging opponents of same-sex marriage to continue to fight. He held a private meeting in Olympia with a group of gay marriage opponents who are now exploring a referendum to block the new law.

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


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: santorum; washington
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-78 next last

1 posted on 02/13/2012 5:41:45 PM PST by writer33
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks; American Constitutionalist; Antoninus; Colonel_Flagg; cripplecreek; ...

For those interested.


2 posted on 02/13/2012 5:42:28 PM PST by writer33 (Mark Levin Is The Constitutional Engine Of Conservatism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: writer33

Good move by Santorum. Be interesting to see if Newt of mittens speaks up.


3 posted on 02/13/2012 5:46:36 PM PST by icwhatudo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: writer33

If Santorum becomes the next POTUS, I’d love to be part of the administration to inform all that science still doesn’t support the born-that-way theory. Part of his administration or not, I’ll debate anybody on live, unedited television on the science of same-sex attraction.


4 posted on 02/13/2012 5:46:51 PM PST by scripter ("You don't have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body." - C.S. Lewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: writer33

We are going to have the best principled President in decades. Getting rid of gay marriage and all the nonsense that comes with it.....hopefully getting rid of that gays in the military law....getting rid of abortion through constitutional amendment. I can’t believe just on those three items that we don’t have 100 percent support at least on this site.


5 posted on 02/13/2012 5:49:38 PM PST by napscoordinator (A moral principled Christian with character is the frontrunner! Congrats Santorum!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: writer33

The left NEVER gives up. We need to be as tenacious.

By the way, I don’t care if gays do whatever they want to with each other, including having a big party to dedicate their love to each other for the rest of their lives. They can open joint accounts, give each other powers of attorney, etc. and I wish them well.

Where I draw the line is trying to force the rest of society into the LEGAL OBLIGATIONS that flow from the institution of marriage, including but not limited to employer health insurance.


6 posted on 02/13/2012 5:49:43 PM PST by jdsteel (Give me freedom, not more government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: writer33

God bless Santorum for speaking out fearlessly on an issue that`s treated by so many politicians as a “third rail.” Might as well fight it..it`s not like WA will vote GOP anyway.


7 posted on 02/13/2012 5:49:43 PM PST by ScottinVA (GOP, meet Courage... Courage, meet GOP.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: writer33

The people of my state votes 60/40 against it. Seems to me that that is the end of it but I’m sure its not.


8 posted on 02/13/2012 5:50:49 PM PST by cripplecreek (What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: scripter

I hope they discover a muted gay gene because when they do, the godless will join the rest of us and end abortion.. for different reasons but an end at least


9 posted on 02/13/2012 5:52:15 PM PST by delchiante
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: writer33

Perfect timing! this will draw more people out to the Mar 3 Caucus, the last contest prior to Super Tuesday.


10 posted on 02/13/2012 6:05:36 PM PST by parksstp (Articulate Conservatives look for Converts. RINO's look for Democrat Heretics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
The people of my state votes 60/40 against it. Seems to me that that is the end of it but I’m sure its not.

That's what California thought.

11 posted on 02/13/2012 6:10:23 PM PST by writer33 (Mark Levin Is The Constitutional Engine Of Conservatism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

Marriage is a function of religion.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...


12 posted on 02/13/2012 6:10:34 PM PST by Gene Eric (Newt/Sarah 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: writer33

Rick has been consistent in this both today, yesterday, and every day. He has been consistent when it was popular to be so and when it has been unpopular. He has been a voice of encouragement, often a lonely voice in Washington, for decades. He has taken the arrows for it—he can’t even google his own name in front of his children—but he has been consistent. He could have taken the easy road. He took the hard road. There is no one in politics today that the radical homosexual community hates more than Rick Santorum. Mitt has positions. Rick has convictions. Rick has stood his ground and paid the price. It has been a great honor for me to be able to say that I support him for President.


13 posted on 02/13/2012 6:11:54 PM PST by Engraved-on-His-hands
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator
We are going to have the best principled President in decades. Getting rid of gay marriage and all the nonsense that comes with it.....hopefully getting rid of that gays in the military law....getting rid of abortion through constitutional amendment. I can’t believe just on those three items that we don’t have 100 percent support at least on this site.

Of your list, the only thing Santorum MIGHT be able to accomplish is ending the policy of allowing gays in the military - and quite frankly, I doubt he could even do that. He might try, and that would turn into a long drawn out court battle. A worthwhile battle indeed, but one we may lose.

The other issues would require constitutional amendments which don't even have the votes (2/3rds) to pass the House and Senate. If they could get out of the House and Senate, the ban on abortion would never pass the states. The ban on gay marriage might, but again, it wouldn't get out of the House and Senate in the first place.

What Santorum could and would do better than any other candidate in the race is nominate excellent, truly conservative judges. If he got enough on the bench (and at least 1 to replace Ginsberg) we might at least have a shot at overturning Roe in the future. That doesn't end abortion though, and once it went to the state level most would continue to allow it.

I can’t believe just on those three items that we don’t have 100 percent support at least on this site.

Because he can't actually do the things you claim he can. Further, many people don't think Santorum has even the slightest chance to beat Obama. If we nominate Santorum, we are going to be running on social issues in a campaign that just screams to be about how badly Hussein has mishandled the economy. Santorum is a social issue champion, but if we are talking about whether birth control is a good or bad thing for women through this campaign (not just whether the gov't should pay for it), we are going to lose and lose badly. Most women like their birth control, and they aren't going to vote for someone who comes across as a stick in the mud wanting to lecture them on his believe that birth control is bad. We are voting for a President, not a priest.

14 posted on 02/13/2012 6:15:12 PM PST by Longbow1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator
I can’t believe just on those three items that we don’t have 100 percent support at least on this site.

Libertarians don't see it as a problem, which is why Goldwater is just a memory of things that might have been.

15 posted on 02/13/2012 6:17:34 PM PST by itsahoot (I will Vote for Palin, even if I have to write her in.(Recycled Tagline))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Engraved-on-His-hands

I bet it’s been an honor. Likewise.


16 posted on 02/13/2012 6:19:47 PM PST by writer33 (Mark Levin Is The Constitutional Engine Of Conservatism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: writer33
He (Santorum) held a private meeting in Olympia with a group of gay marriage opponents who are now exploring a referendum to block the new law.

Has Mr. Santorum held a private meeting with groups who oppose Obama's "budget" designed to turn America into Greece?

Or is this not important?

17 posted on 02/13/2012 6:22:07 PM PST by Right_in_Virginia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Right_in_Virginia

“Or is this not important? “

It is..but....an open sewer is still an open sewer, even if it has a perfectly balanced budget.


18 posted on 02/13/2012 6:55:47 PM PST by GenXteacher (He that hath no stomach for this fight, let him depart!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Longbow1969
If we nominate Santorum, we are going to be running on social issues in a campaign that just screams to be about how badly Hussein has mishandled the economy.

Right. It's just not a good match for the times.

The GOP nomination situation sure is a muddled mess. Santorum is definitely not my first choice, but if things stay this way, then a brokered convention would be quite the spectacle, and who knows what might happen!

I dunno. It may be that any GOP candidate could mop the floor with 0bama this election cycle. Maybe the discontent really runs as deep as we all seem to think it is...

19 posted on 02/13/2012 6:59:37 PM PST by sargon (I don't like the sound of these "boncentration bamps")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: itsahoot

>> Libertarians don’t see it as a problem

The problem as I see it is giving govt the power to prosecute those whom refuse to support certain forms of ‘marriage’. That’s the govt enforcing its religion on the citizens.

I don’t need no damn govt to validate the sacrament of marriage.


20 posted on 02/13/2012 7:01:33 PM PST by Gene Eric (Newt/Sarah 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator
"getting rid of abortion through constitutional amendment"

What does POTUS have to do with that?

And homo marriage will remain a 10th Amendment issue until/unless there's a Constitutional Amendment to outlaw it.

21 posted on 02/13/2012 7:44:09 PM PST by Mariner (War Criminal #18)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Longbow1969
"Because he can't actually do the things you claim he can. Further, many people don't think Santorum has even the slightest chance to beat Obama. If we nominate Santorum, we are going to be running on social issues in a campaign that just screams to be about how badly Hussein has mishandled the economy. Santorum is a social issue champion, but if we are talking about whether birth control is a good or bad thing for women through this campaign (not just whether the gov't should pay for it), we are going to lose and lose badly. Most women like their birth control, and they aren't going to vote for someone who comes across as a stick in the mud wanting to lecture them on his believe that birth control is bad. We are voting for a President, not a priest. "

Welcome to the outsiders club.

It's time to realize that now matter how many keystrokes are expended, the Social Conservatives are going to have their candidate this time. They are a large plurality of the GOP primary electorate and in this split field they have chosen Santorum.

That's a base of between 30 and 40%.

We'll see how it works out. Maybe they're right and maybe they're wrong. But it's looking like we'll know in less than a year how Santorum will hold up to the ads that NO GOP candidate would ever run.

Of course that won't stop the MSM, democrats and their filthy rich SuperPacs from running them.

It doesn't even matter if they are true or complete in context. It doesn't even matter if they are conclusively proven untrue.

What matters, as you stated above, is what the debate is going to be about.

And I believe if we nominate Santorum the GOP will lose and lose big. It will hurt down ticket as well with 1/2 the GOP caucus running FROM Rick Santorum publicly.

22 posted on 02/13/2012 7:54:52 PM PST by Mariner (War Criminal #18)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Gene Eric
"I don’t need no damn govt to validate the sacrament of marriage."

Amen.

And no religious institution or private employer should be required to recognize or accommodate it either.

After that I got to believe our Constitution allows the states to define what marriage means in their state...even if homos are able to get "married"...or polygamists.

I don't see any state crossing the bestiality threshold...but you never know. If they do it's time to re-examine the constitution.

23 posted on 02/13/2012 8:01:02 PM PST by Mariner (War Criminal #18)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Mariner
Agree with most of your post. I'd only disagree that I am not quite sure Santorum has locked it up yet. I think if it really looks like he could be nominated, you'll see a lot of people realizing we are about to nominate someone who doesn't have even the slightest chance of winning a general election. Just today some of the conservative blogs are running the videos of Santorum arguing against contraception (not banning it, just being personally opposed). It may be enough to force people to blink. But, to what end? That's the problem. Romney is simply so despised by most of the base, that large percentages would rather nominate someone they know, in their hearts, can't win than nominate Mitt. It's why I have been supporting Newt - and I am not even sure Gingrich has much of a chance. With Newt I at least see the opportunity for a hail mary win, someone who can so change the dynamic that we can pull off something big. With Santorum, I simply know he will lose and accomplish nothing other than maybe satisfy social conservatives that we at least let their guy try.

What matters, as you stated above, is what the debate is going to be about.

Yup, that's the problem. There is no way for Santorum to prevent his nomination being turned into a social values referendum - precisely because that is almost entirely what Santorum is known for. Every video of him explaining his opposition to contraception will be all over the TV. Every discussion he's every had about women at home versus the workplace will be endlessly analyzed by the media. People just need to face the facts, women want their contraception and the vast majority of Catholics even ignore their own church's teaching on the matter. Rick Santorum discussing the evils of birth control is about the biggest sure fire loser of an issue I can think of. And didn't we already learn on lesson with Dan Quayle and the Murphy Brown thing? Unfortunately, whether he wanted to or not, Santorum would end up talking about that stuff and it will kill us.

And I believe if we nominate Santorum the GOP will lose and lose big. It will hurt down ticket as well with 1/2 the GOP caucus running FROM Rick Santorum publicly.

Yup, that is the way I see it. Santorum would lose by at least 10 - perhaps as bad as 60/40. We'd lose the House and the Dems would keep the Senate. That might even be fine if it was the beginning of a true movement, but Rick simply isn't the kind of charismatic leader who could do much after a crushing defeat. He'd lose, and unfortunately, the lesson would simply be that social values candidates can't win.

24 posted on 02/13/2012 8:25:07 PM PST by Longbow1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: scripter

As you know the lesser APA says there is no Sodomite gene.

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=528376


25 posted on 02/13/2012 8:33:30 PM PST by Clint N. Suhks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Mariner

It would require a giant leap of faith to divorce the govt of its marriage ‘responsibilities’, but I doubt Conservatives would have the stomach for it.


26 posted on 02/13/2012 8:37:46 PM PST by Gene Eric (Newt/Sarah 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: writer33

I hope today isn’t the first and last day he gives any thought to this terrible news from Olympia. If he follows up I’ll be really impressed.


27 posted on 02/13/2012 8:57:27 PM PST by steve86 (Acerbic by nature, not nurture (Could be worst in 40 years))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: delchiante
I hope they discover a muted gay gene...

I've heard that before and understand it. At this point scientists don't think they'll ever find a gay gene, and that includes scientists who are gay themselves. Environment is key and all credible scientists know environment is a major factor.

28 posted on 02/13/2012 9:19:43 PM PST by scripter ("You don't have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body." - C.S. Lewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Clint N. Suhks
Indeed. BTW, I've updated my profile with some recent studies and information. Once I summarize all the scientific data I'll post another 'categorical index' as its own thread. Time is the problem.
29 posted on 02/13/2012 9:23:20 PM PST by scripter ("You don't have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body." - C.S. Lewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Gene Eric
"It would require a giant leap of faith to divorce the govt of its marriage ‘responsibilities’, but I doubt Conservatives would have the stomach for it."

Women would oppose it in large numbers for the first decade or two. They prefer STATE sanctioned marriage and, of course, they want to be special:)

30 posted on 02/13/2012 9:26:00 PM PST by Mariner (War Criminal #18)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: writer33

Perfect timing. You’d almost think Obama may have purposefully gone after these issues in order to drive up Santorum’s visibility.
The reason? Maybe Obama doesn’t want his opponents emphasizing other things.


31 posted on 02/13/2012 9:42:34 PM PST by anglian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gene Eric
" Marriage is a function of religion. "

** Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion **

So you are against Conservatives and Christians who oppose Gay Rights and Gay marriage ? is that correct ?

So you endorse Gay Marriage then ? right ?


Sorry to tell you, marriage as defined as a man and a woman was in place and part of society even before any forum of government ever existed including our own US Constitution.
32 posted on 02/13/2012 10:07:49 PM PST by American Constitutionalist (The fool has said in his heart, " there is no GOD " ..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Mariner
"I don’t need no damn govt to validate the sacrament of marriage."

But government with the help of the homosexual agenda and liberals are taking something away that has always existed.
So you oppose government validating the sacrament of marriage between a man and a woman, but ? do you oppose government forcing us to except gay marriage and gay rights ?
33 posted on 02/13/2012 10:12:36 PM PST by American Constitutionalist (The fool has said in his heart, " there is no GOD " ..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Mariner
"I don’t need no damn govt to validate the sacrament of marriage."

But government with the help of the homosexual agenda and liberals are taking something away that has always existed.
So you oppose government validating the sacrament of marriage between a man and a woman, but ? do you oppose government forcing us to accept gay marriage and gay rights ?
34 posted on 02/13/2012 10:13:33 PM PST by American Constitutionalist (The fool has said in his heart, " there is no GOD " ..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Gene Eric

So you have no problem of government forcing us to accept gay marriage and gay rights ? isn’t that what you saying here ? yes or no ?


35 posted on 02/13/2012 10:15:05 PM PST by American Constitutionalist (The fool has said in his heart, " there is no GOD " ..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: American Constitutionalist

Your deduction sucks.


36 posted on 02/13/2012 10:50:34 PM PST by Gene Eric (Newt/Sarah 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Gene Eric

We will let the conservatives decide.


37 posted on 02/13/2012 10:57:15 PM PST by American Constitutionalist (The fool has said in his heart, " there is no GOD " ..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: American Constitutionalist

It’s really difficult to understand where the Hell you’re coming from.

I quote the 1st sentence of the 1st Amendment supporting the premise that govt is not the adjudicator of marriage, and you give me some idiotic crap. WTF is your problem?


38 posted on 02/13/2012 11:25:26 PM PST by Gene Eric (Newt/Sarah 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Gene Eric
Were I come from ?
The institution of marriage ( between a man and woman that is ) was in place even before our country was founded, and marriage has always been part of our human experience since the beginning of creation, so how can you say that it is something that you won't want to government to force upon us ? marriage was before government, so government needs to take a back seat to the institution of marriage.
So those who do not want to government to enforce the sanctity of marriage between a man and woman have no problem with the government forcing us to accept gay marriage ? tell me ? is that right or wrong ? yes or no ?
Is it right for the government to force us to accept something that we oppose and is against our long held values ?
39 posted on 02/13/2012 11:38:36 PM PST by American Constitutionalist (The fool has said in his heart, " there is no GOD " ..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: American Constitutionalist
And while all you 'conservatives' are deciding the validity of my remarks, think back to the day you got married. Did you experience the statist's nirvana in front of a govt judge, or did you honor your spouse-to-be there before God? You think about that, smartass. You can't have it both ways:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

40 posted on 02/13/2012 11:46:33 PM PST by Gene Eric (Newt/Sarah 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Gene Eric
" and you give me some idiotic crap. WTF is your problem? "
Please explain what you mean by " Idiotic Crap " since we are talking about marriage ?
You know very well what I am talking about and don't pretend that you can't understand what I am talking about.
As I said before ? what is your stance on the government forcing us to accept gay marriage ?
41 posted on 02/13/2012 11:46:39 PM PST by American Constitutionalist (The fool has said in his heart, " there is no GOD " ..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Gene Eric
Can't have a valid or legal marriage in most states without a marriage license.

42 posted on 02/13/2012 11:50:21 PM PST by American Constitutionalist (The fool has said in his heart, " there is no GOD " ..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Gene Eric

I see, “ YOU CONSERVATIVES “


43 posted on 02/13/2012 11:51:33 PM PST by American Constitutionalist (The fool has said in his heart, " there is no GOD " ..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: American Constitutionalist

Marriage has been understood by all societies since the dawn of time as the union between one man and one woman.

If you look up the word “marriage” in ANY of the law dictionaries, Blacks, Bouviers, Andersons, it will say the same thing.

Marriage is the union between one man and one woman.

This is just historical fact. It has zero to do with “discrimination” or any other BS they are trying to convince us of.

Call them “civil unions”, call them “partnerships”, call them whatever you darn well please.

But it is not and never will be marriage.


44 posted on 02/13/2012 11:53:14 PM PST by djf (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2801220/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Gene Eric

Do you need you government to tell you you have to employ cross dressing perverts in your business or in your local school? Well guess what you have to. Just part of their grand plan to decriminalize the deviant behaviors of the pond scum that libertarians don’t seem to object to.


45 posted on 02/13/2012 11:58:32 PM PST by itsahoot (I will Vote for Palin, even if I have to write her in.(Recycled Tagline))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: American Constitutionalist

>> You know very well what I am talking about

I do. You and the Left are trying to use govt to control the citizens’ behavior. I’m telling you and the Left to get the # out. I’d rather entrust our morality with God and His representatives especially when it involves the most basic sacraments and traditional rituals of life.


46 posted on 02/14/2012 12:00:53 AM PST by Gene Eric (Newt/Sarah 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: itsahoot

>> Just part of their grand plan to decriminalize the deviant behaviors

You have it backwards. The govt is criminalizing the objection of deviant behavior.


47 posted on 02/14/2012 12:04:42 AM PST by Gene Eric (Newt/Sarah 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Engraved-on-His-hands

He has taken the arrows for it—he can’t even google his own name in front of his children—


His children can’t even google their OWN name. Senator Santorum has put his all into the fight. I loved when you said Romney has “positions” on issues. Santorum has convictions.


48 posted on 02/14/2012 12:06:54 AM PST by Yaelle (Go Santorum!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: American Constitutionalist

>> Can’t have a valid or legal marriage in most states without a marriage license.

Licenses? What are we dogs? Is God’s blessings not enough?


49 posted on 02/14/2012 12:07:00 AM PST by Gene Eric (Newt/Sarah 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Gene Eric
I have been here on Free Republic since 2004, and have no part of being on the left.
People want the government to stay out of our lives, and that includes marriage.
So ? what are we to do when government forces us to accept gay marriage ? sit around and let it happen ? no.
50 posted on 02/14/2012 12:07:34 AM PST by American Constitutionalist (The fool has said in his heart, " there is no GOD " ..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-78 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