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

Skip to comments.

Church does not OWN marriage
BBC News ^ | 02/25/12 | BBC News

Posted on 02/24/2012 11:18:47 PM PST by EnglishCon

The Church does not "own" marriage nor have the exclusive right to say who can marry, a government minister has said.

Equalities minister Lynne Featherstone said the government was entitled to introduce same-sex marriages, which she says would be a "change for the better".

Her comments come as ministers prepare to launch a public consultation on legalising gay marriage next month.

Traditionalists want the law on marriage to remain unchanged.

(Excerpt) Read more at bbc.co.uk ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; United Kingdom
KEYWORDS: homosexualagenda; ungland
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-182 next last
To: ansel12

Here’s another point.

I’m against “gay marriage” and gay anything for that matter.

I’ll presume that you are as well.

So here are two situations:

1. The government controls marriage. The government institutes gay marriage, which is currently happening at a hellish pace. Because marriage is a government enforced thing, businesses are forced to give benefits to “gay marriage” couples. Schools are forced to teach “gay marriages are good” curriculum. Et cetera.

2. The government gets out of controlling / licensing marriage and an adult man and an adult woman can write / sign their own marriage contract, with the terms binding only upon them. None of the horrible consequences of situation 1 happen, and divorce becomes rare. Civilization flourishes.


51 posted on 02/25/2012 2:26:10 AM PST by DNA.2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

You keep making up stuff and attributing it to someone else.

Stop.


52 posted on 02/25/2012 2:27:21 AM PST by DNA.2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

>> you are trying to eliminate marriage as we know it

I made no comments to that effect.

You simply don’t trust people, and would rather have the govt enforce your will upon society. That is statism.

Unlike you, I trust the influence of Christianity to guide us independently of the govt scum that’s destroying this Country.

I seriously doubt many Americans would enjoy Founding law. It’s a shame.


53 posted on 02/25/2012 2:29:41 AM PST by Gene Eric (Newt/Sarah 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: EnglishCon

The third-century Roman jurist, Modestinus, captured the common understanding of marriage with the following definition: “Marriage is the union of a man and a woman, a consortium for the whole of life involving the communication of divine and human rights.” This union and these rights exist, not merely for their own sake, but also and especially for the sake of the inter-generational concerns of progeny and property; with a view, that is, to the conditions necessary for the founding and flourishing of the family. The rights involved are divine as well as human because marriage is generative, and hence pre- as well as pro-political; because what is founded through marriage is, in the twentieth-century language of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, “the natural and fundamental group unit of society.”

What the state is doing through same sex marriage is to de-naturalize the family by rendering familial relationships as policy relationships, defined and imposed by the state. In doing so, it effectively makes every citizen a ward of the state, by turning his or her most fundamental human connections into legal constructs at the state’s subjective whim.


54 posted on 02/25/2012 2:30:31 AM PST by jonrick46 (Countdown to 11-06-2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DNA.2012

Wouldn’t that be dreamy, divorce, and children, and complicated 40 year relationships and elaborate estates would be so much easier without laws, and courts, and judges, and legislation, and marriage defined between a man and woman.

If you don’t want homosexual marriage, then push for a constitutional amendment, or you can legalize it nationally, along with polygamy and everything else as you are proposing.

You aren’t trying to preserve marriage, you are trying to erase marriage entirely.


55 posted on 02/25/2012 2:32:38 AM PST by ansel12 (Romney is unquestionably the weakest party front-runner in contemporary political history.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

The news story is from the UK. It is aimed at the UK.

Answer my question instead of trying to divert it.


56 posted on 02/25/2012 2:33:41 AM PST by EnglishCon (Gingrich/Santorum 2012.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: jonrick46

Thank you. You have said in 50 words what I could not say in a thousand!


57 posted on 02/25/2012 2:34:40 AM PST by EnglishCon (Gingrich/Santorum 2012.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: All

As getting government out of marriage at any point would not ensure that government would stay out of marriage voluntarily, I would be perfectly fine with very succinct amendments to state constitutions saying

“Marriage is a private contract between one adult man and one adult woman, binding only upon the one adult man and one adult woman who sign it. All terms of that private contract, including ownership and control of income, property, and other material wealth and sources are to be decided upon by them. As with any contract, the terms may not include any otherwise illegal action.”


58 posted on 02/25/2012 2:34:47 AM PST by DNA.2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Gene Eric

Christian law is what we are trying to preserve, to tell the Muslims and homosexuals that they now are in charge of defining marriage, is to do the opposite of what your pretend to want.


59 posted on 02/25/2012 2:35:19 AM PST by ansel12 (Romney is unquestionably the weakest party front-runner in contemporary political history.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Gene Eric
I made no comments to that effect.

Me neither.

60 posted on 02/25/2012 2:36:35 AM PST by DNA.2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: DNA.2012

Great...use a source from Great Britian for your opine. Perhaps you should try a Country where a Church was created to allow King Henry to divorce his wife so he could break one of Gods laws.


61 posted on 02/25/2012 2:41:02 AM PST by JohnD9207 (Santorum...the only Conservative in the race.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: EnglishCon

This is not Britain, I naturally did not expect that we were going to devote an entire thread on this marriage topic to British law.

If your people are so under control of your state church that you can replace the secular government, and your people want to transfer authority to them, then give it a shot, in this nation we are free, and Anglicans don’t rule us.

I hope that you have the guns to force your church rules onto the Muslims and homosexuals, and atheists, and such.


62 posted on 02/25/2012 2:41:55 AM PST by ansel12 (Romney is unquestionably the weakest party front-runner in contemporary political history.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

I’m not pretending. I’m fully aware of the risk.

If you want strict rule about the type of behavior that is acceptable, say so. Just understand that bequeathing the govt with that kind of power can bite you in the ass.

G’night FRiend.


63 posted on 02/25/2012 2:42:03 AM PST by Gene Eric (Newt/Sarah 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: DNA.2012

Great...use a source from Great Britian for your opine. Perhaps you should try a Country where a Church was created to allow King Henry to divorce his wife so he could break one of Gods laws. Gee does Government own my car because it requires me to buy a license?


64 posted on 02/25/2012 2:42:24 AM PST by JohnD9207 (Santorum...the only Conservative in the race.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: DNA.2012; Gene Eric

Your entire argument is to let anyone and everyone define marriage for themselves, that there will no longer be a universal definition in America.

That means that all religions, all churches, all individuals, all atheists, all cults, all homosexuals, define marriage for themselves.


65 posted on 02/25/2012 2:45:14 AM PST by ansel12 (Romney is unquestionably the weakest party front-runner in contemporary political history.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Gene Eric

That isn’t logical.

Because the law is showing cracks in a few states, we just give up and end the entire concept of one man, one woman, marriage,or even monogamy, forever, and that is better?


66 posted on 02/25/2012 2:49:15 AM PST by ansel12 (Romney is unquestionably the weakest party front-runner in contemporary political history.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: JohnD9207

You might wish to check which post you were trying to reply to.


67 posted on 02/25/2012 2:50:40 AM PST by DNA.2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
Kindly read post #58.
68 posted on 02/25/2012 2:52:08 AM PST by DNA.2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: DNA.2012

I read it earlier, it didn’t make sense.

States that are already slipping because their voters are liberal, are not going to pass that, or even a much better written version of that fantasy.


69 posted on 02/25/2012 2:57:57 AM PST by ansel12 (Romney is unquestionably the weakest party front-runner in contemporary political history.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

Your inability to comprehend something does not render that thing nonsensical.

It’s borderline perfect.

But I leave you to your hopelessness.


70 posted on 02/25/2012 2:59:52 AM PST by DNA.2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: DNA.2012

Sorry if I offended you...not seeing well this early.


71 posted on 02/25/2012 3:01:44 AM PST by JohnD9207 (Santorum...the only Conservative in the race.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: DNA.2012

Fine it is perfect and will solve all divorce and child issues.

How do you expect to pass it in states that are just now or recently passing homosexual marriage?


72 posted on 02/25/2012 3:04:31 AM PST by ansel12 (Romney is unquestionably the weakest party front-runner in contemporary political history.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

I think the point is that the state is going to use legal power to force churches to perform marriage ceremonies for couples that are not a man and a woman.

It would be one thing if the state just wanted to force its own registry offices to do this, in which case it would be a question of conscience for employees who do not agree on moral grounds, but would not exert power on the churches themselves. The state and the gay lobby are not satisfied with this, however.


73 posted on 02/25/2012 3:10:40 AM PST by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: livius

The government won’t be forcing preachers to show up at their Southern Baptist church in Texas, or anywhere else, and perform marriages that they don’t want to.

They can’t even make a Catholic Priest marry a Lutheran and a Methodist.


74 posted on 02/25/2012 3:16:28 AM PST by ansel12 (Romney is unquestionably the weakest party front-runner in contemporary political history.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

Come on mate. I asked a simple question of you. And I know you are fully capable of insightful analysis, telling it like it is and honesty.

Stop[ evading and answer the question. This sinner wants to know.


75 posted on 02/25/2012 3:43:25 AM PST by EnglishCon (Gingrich/Santorum 2012.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: EnglishCon

What question are you asking?


76 posted on 02/25/2012 3:49:37 AM PST by ansel12 (Romney is unquestionably the weakest party front-runner in contemporary political history.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: ansel12; JRandomFreeper
"Marriage predates Christianity."

Of course it does. Everybody knows that. Jesus Himself said it was from "before Moses," that it was "from the beginning."

What Jesus did was to restore and ennoble it even further: One man. One woman. For God. For good.

77 posted on 02/25/2012 3:55:29 AM PST by Mrs. Don-o (Make love. Accept no substitutes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: EnglishCon

The Church doesn’t own it - God does and He considers it holy and sacred. I still marvel that Job lost everything except the shrew of a wife - God blesses the union of a man and a woman even if only one is actually fulfilling the duties.


78 posted on 02/25/2012 3:56:52 AM PST by trebb ("If a man will not work, he should not eat" From 2 Thes 3)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EnglishCon

You don’t mean that we are still at you trying to introduce polygamy and homosexual marriage do you? Is that your agenda, or do you want to enslave everyone to the particular church that you attend?


79 posted on 02/25/2012 3:56:56 AM PST by ansel12 (Romney is unquestionably the weakest party front-runner in contemporary political history.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: EnglishCon
Though I am a firm supporter of free, faithful, sacred fertile union of one man and one woman --- I too wonder how the federal govt. could stop polygamy. I don't mean that they should *approve* and *license* it, I just mean why should they butt into a private contractual agreement?

I'm open to discussion on this, one way or the other.

My default position seems to be: I am highly skeptical of civil marriage.

80 posted on 02/25/2012 3:59:53 AM PST by Mrs. Don-o (Make love. Accept no substitutes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

They will. That’s what this is all about.

When you have a protected class (gays) and a law that says refusal to provide a service to this protected class is a crime, then you can insist that the service providers offer the protected class all the “services” that they offer to others. If marriage is defined as something that is a service to be offered to everyone, regardless of the fact that traditionally it was not offered to persons of the same sex and has never been offered to those people by the churches, you can then insist that the churches provide this service.

The government may not be able to force the Catholics or Baptists to do this, but they’re certainly going to try and I honestly expect them to use threats of imprisonment or seizure of property to enforce this.

The bizarre thing is that being married in church is not legally necessary even now. If gays want to have a sham marriage in front of a willing JP, they are certainly free to do so in many states, and that’s all they need. The church and the clergy simply constitute the witnesses that are required by the state and would be found in any registry office or even Vegas “wedding chapel” or JP marriage in somebody’s garden.

The Catholic Church has a sacramental understanding of marriage, but that obviously depends on whether you accept it or not, and affects only Catholics who accept it and want to be married in a church wedding. Since none of these people by defnition would be gays, the state shouldn’t have any interest in who the Church offers the service of marriage to. But the state sees the Church as a threat to its power, and that’s why it wants to force “gay marriage” on the churches.

The long and short of it is that there is no need, even in terms of “non-discrimination,” for the state to force churches to perform marriage ceremonies for gays...but the state is obviously going to do so, because destroying the church is very important to the left.


81 posted on 02/25/2012 4:01:55 AM PST by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: livius

I don’t think that the marriage ceremony inside the individual , or religion church is under threat, if government butts out the only change in that regard is that the Mormon Church could resume polygamy ceremonies, as could the Muslim church, and the lesbian and homosexual churches could do what they wanted, and everything would be “marriage”, since the definition would become purely undefined.


82 posted on 02/25/2012 4:09:00 AM PST by ansel12 (Romney is unquestionably the weakest party front-runner in contemporary political history.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: denydenydeny
I think it’s a way for government to force churches to marry same-sex couples whether they want to or not

Trick question. If the church doesn't own marriage, then why would they be concerned about a church sacrament?

If the secular and civil society wants to 'celebrate' same-sex weddings/marriage they are perfectly able to do so. Judges, for hundreds of years have married people.

They want to walk down the aisle, go to Vegas baby! Or let them, secularists, open and create their own wedding halls. Gee, look at all the really cool jobs they can create from the secular marriage counselor to wedding planner to caterer! The fact remains if secular society wants same-sex couples to get married, that is secular society's concern. There are/will be many avenues to which the government can 'approve' marriage, but this does not mean they are all "God approved."

There is absolutely no reason for the government to interfere with the religious sacrament that is marriage. The Church, the priest, the minister, the reverend has no authority to put together in the sacrament of marriage, that which God condemns as a sin. No one forces anyone to be a member of the Church, it is a free-will choice(except for islam).

So, why does the government feel such a 'need' as to declare the boundaries between civil and sacrament? They have existed for all of modern time.

Consider for just a moment who authorized the Church to conduct marriages as an agent of the government? They can just as easily take it away from the church.

Consider this wonky essay from a few years ago, By the power vested in me by the Great Cthulhu and the State of California

83 posted on 02/25/2012 4:14:25 AM PST by EBH (God Humbles Nations, Leaders, and Peoples before He uses them for His Purpose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: DNA.2012
who gets what isn’t decided by a church, or the couple, or any concept of sacramental bonds, but rather by govt. courts.

Exactly correct. The government decides. If one desires a divorce through the Catholic Church, one must go through a church annulment process. If you do not and begin dating or pursue a civil marriage outside the Church, one is living in sin.

The legal and the sacrament are separate concerns.

84 posted on 02/25/2012 4:20:15 AM PST by EBH (God Humbles Nations, Leaders, and Peoples before He uses them for His Purpose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: EnglishCon
The laws of true marriage are controlled by God. Anything else is civil and nonbinding, spiritually.

We are not this world, no matter how hard this world attempts to deceive us and subdue us otherwise - the truth remains - we are to subdue the world.

85 posted on 02/25/2012 4:42:05 AM PST by jacknhoo (Luke 12:51. Think ye, that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, no; but separation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EnglishCon

Purely for the mental exercise and discussion, and not something I condone at all, but:

By what right did the federal government have to stop polygamy?
........................................................
By the same right they had to stop prostitution.

It didn’t suit the majority.

Now the world has become so Fugged up that a majority see Homosexuality as “normal”.

At least enough see it that way that they are trying to get it approved.


86 posted on 02/25/2012 4:44:52 AM PST by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Gene Eric

Marriage is a holy sacrament. Government has NO business defining it.


87 posted on 02/25/2012 4:49:36 AM PST by griswold3 (Big Government does not tolerate rivals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: EnglishCon

No to steal the thread, but who you rooting for in the Wales Vs England Rugby Match today?


88 posted on 02/25/2012 4:53:02 AM PST by mware (By all that you hold dear on this good earth, I bid you stand, Men of the West)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: EnglishCon

“...in a long term relationship that outlasted the marriages of most of my heterosexual friends...”

Degenerates don’t stop being degenerates just because they are “married”. Moral degeneration is a dynamic process that never stops. Superficial comparisons aside, trust me you would not want to see the inside of this relationship.


89 posted on 02/25/2012 4:55:12 AM PST by TalBlack ( Evil doesn't have a day job.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: EnglishCon
I don’t need government telling me that my word is provisional, or that they can define the meanings of what I said. Like most here, to me those words are sacred. A trust that you simply cannot break, because breaking those vows breaks you.

Very profound words. Thank you.

90 posted on 02/25/2012 4:56:07 AM PST by exit82 (Democrats are the enemies of freedom. We have ideas-the Dems only have ideology.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
I too wonder how the federal govt. could stop polygamy

Right now, a man can shack up with 7 different women at once and engage in incredibly hedonistic conduct every night.

They can call it marriage between themselves.

They can probably get someone calling themselves a priest to officiate their union.

Does the fact that they don't have a government-issued marriage license change their identical-to-polygamous-marriage pattern of life?

91 posted on 02/25/2012 4:58:15 AM PST by DNA.2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: kingu
You are correct. Government can only acknowledge marriage they can't establish it or change it. If they attempt to "force" the issue nobody wins because everyone will turn their backs on the institution and laugh at those who think they have "changed" the word enough to make the world accept them.

I have friends who are in a committed relationship and I don't think they are not committed to each other because they don't have a marriage certificate. I have other friends who are married but I know for a fact that one of them is not in a committed relationship. The word has nothing to do with it, nor does the legality.

92 posted on 02/25/2012 5:14:08 AM PST by McGavin999
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: McGavin999

Read the news, governments are instituting a new thing called “gay marriage” across the country.


93 posted on 02/25/2012 5:16:59 AM PST by DNA.2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: EnglishCon

I think the West needs a revolution against these leftist scum. However,I also think that the conservative side is losing in most Western countries. The next Hitler will most definitely come from the left.


94 posted on 02/25/2012 5:20:15 AM PST by ohioman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EnglishCon
Makes me want to cry sometimes, the state of this once great nation.

Hold back your tears, they impair your aim.

95 posted on 02/25/2012 5:26:39 AM PST by varon (Allegiance to the Constitution, always. Allegiance to a party, never!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: EnglishCon

“Equalities minister”, what a wholly Orwellian term. Has anyone read Harrison Bergeron lately?

http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html


96 posted on 02/25/2012 5:45:34 AM PST by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: denydenydeny

It’s the way for government to criminalize divorce and thus throw in jail the “perp”, much like England tried to do when we declared independence on civil terms and decided to make war.


97 posted on 02/25/2012 5:46:49 AM PST by JudgemAll (Democrats Fed. job-security Whorocracy & hate:hypocrites must be gay like us or be tested/crucified)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: EnglishCon

True -the church does not OWN “marriage” cannot say who can or cannot marry. Nor can it dictate to the State who can or cannot be considered by the State as “married”.That having been stated— IMO the converse is equally True /Valid. The STATE doe snot OWN “marriage” and cannot dictate to the church
who it must recognize as “married”. What the church can and must do is dictate to the congregation and to the community
who it will accept as “married” And what doctrines are acceptable for membership in the church. And those not willing to accept such Church doctrine or Church discipline ought not attempt to force the church to change and accept wickedness/ and divisions-and needless controversy within the body. And this ought be respected by the community and by the State. We ought let church be church. And those who cannot accept the doctrine of a church —those not willing to live as reflection of the teaching of their church ought not pretend they belong— (they just disagree) And No church whose doctrines and discipline do not reflect what I can read in the Bible is worthy of my participation.Oh lest I forget when the State—in a Country that began or was once recognized among the Christian nations -when that State adopts legislation contrary to the laws dictated by God,Himself reflected in the Laws of Nature— and /or the
Divine Law reflected in the Holy Writ. Such laws are invalid and I cannot obey for as the Apostles told the unjust Judge
“we ought to obey God rather than men. (Acts 5:29)


98 posted on 02/25/2012 5:46:58 AM PST by StonyBurk (ring)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EnglishCon
 
"I KNOW BUT ONE CODE OF MORALITY FOR MEN WHETHER ACTING SINGLY OR COLLECTIVELY"
--Thomas Jefferson
 
Got Natural Law?
 
 
Sex, Evolution and Behavior
By Martin Daly and Margo Wilson
 
 
Got Socio-Biological Fitness?
 
 "Gay" penguins don't - not even in the San Francisco zoo
http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&source=hp&q=San+Francisco+gay+penguins
 
FAIL.

99 posted on 02/25/2012 5:47:09 AM PST by LomanBill (Animals! The DemocRats blew up the windmill with an Acorn!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: denydenydeny

It’s the way for government to criminalize divorce and thus throw in jail the “perp”, much like England tried to do when we declared independence on civil terms and decided to make war.

IE. instead of private parties sharing the moneys, the government is going to have a tax and slave...

Gay marriage is a trap to these “men”. You cannot get any Obama benefit without having to vote for him and pay him up some how. He is part and parcel of this mandated pyramid scheme.


100 posted on 02/25/2012 5:48:12 AM PST by JudgemAll (Democrats Fed. job-security Whorocracy & hate:hypocrites must be gay like us or be tested/crucified)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-182 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