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

Skip to comments.

Vatican official opens to gay union rights
Agence France-Presse ^

Posted on 02/05/2013 7:49:11 AM PST by fractionated

The Vatican's top official on family policy has opened slightly to the possibility of rights for gay civil unions, although he also stressed that marriage should remain between a man and a woman.

The remarks from Monsignor Vincenzo Paglia, head of the Pontifical Council for the Family, wee made at a Vatican press conference on Monday and were quoted in Italian press on Tuesday.

"Marriage is a clear legal dimension. There are then multiple other types of non-family cohabitation for which solutions should be found in terms of individual law and in my view also in terms of property law," Paglia said.

His comments were widely seen as a reference to gay couples.

"I think this is a terrain that politicians should begin to approach," said the archbishop, adding that legal rights for non-traditional families would "prevent injustice against the weakest".

"This seems an important path to pursue," he said.

The Italian prelate also spoke out against homophobia in the Middle East and Africa, saying that in countries where being gay is considered a crime "this should be fought against"....

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


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: gaymarriage; gayrights; marriageequality

1 posted on 02/05/2013 7:49:16 AM PST by fractionated
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: fractionated

The Catholic Church has surrendered to Satan.


2 posted on 02/05/2013 7:52:29 AM PST by BuffaloJack (Children, pets, and slaves get taken care of. Free Men take care of themselves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fractionated

Game over


3 posted on 02/05/2013 7:53:04 AM PST by Sybeck1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fractionated

Hard to argue we’re not living in the last days...


4 posted on 02/05/2013 7:53:21 AM PST by MichaelCorleone (A return to Jesus and prayer in the schools is the only way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fractionated

This is WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG!

There, I just criticized the senior leadership of my Church again. Any of you wanna start hurling invectives and calling me a Protestant again, bring it on.


5 posted on 02/05/2013 7:55:22 AM PST by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fractionated

This means nothing. Press saying things they want to say again.


6 posted on 02/05/2013 7:58:18 AM PST by Bayard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fractionated

Toothless white trash making inroads with the vatican. See what it got the RCC when males homos infiltrated the church. Go figure.


7 posted on 02/05/2013 7:58:55 AM PST by Neoliberalnot (Marxism works well only with the uneducated and the unarmed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fractionated

Let’s not get carried away, here. Not only does the original article make a great many assumptions (”His comments were widely seen as a reference to gay couples” is rather on the wishful thinking side), but people really do have to get over the media-driven idea that any Vatican spokesman (and there have been many fooling and clueless ones) has any sort of authority to “make policy” for the Church (much less change Church teaching). Stupid comments by “Vatican officials” are as common as dandelions.

“But if the Vatican didn’t approve, he’d smack the spokesman down! The buck stops somewhere!” Blah, blah, blah. No... the Church doesn’t operate the way a corporation, or even a secular country, does. Hyperventilation is not needed... seriously.


8 posted on 02/05/2013 8:00:06 AM PST by paladinan (Rule #1: There is a God. Rule #2: It isn't you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fractionated

Not gonna happen.

Period.


9 posted on 02/05/2013 8:01:43 AM PST by sneakers (Go Sheriff Joe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fractionated

While they’re at it, why not get rid of those inconvenient, bothersome unborn and newly born babies that get in the way.

All right . . . now we’re talking.


10 posted on 02/05/2013 8:03:51 AM PST by laweeks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

*facepalm*


11 posted on 02/05/2013 8:04:21 AM PST by martin_fierro (< |:)~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: paladinan

Here we go again. Ignore all the embarrassing things that come out of the Vatican but parade as Gospel the stuff you like.


12 posted on 02/05/2013 8:04:21 AM PST by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Sybeck1; fractionated

This is not “gay marriage.” This is something that has been discussed for years (and incidentally, it wouldn’t necessarily be homosexuals, but any household of two people living together - such as a pair of siblings, a parent and a grown child, etc. - giving them tax benefits and legal status, etc.). But the gay lobby emphatically rejected that, because they want to seize the word “marriage” to destroy its meaning.

So I don’t think the civil partnerships comment is the end of the world. But that’s not what gays want.


13 posted on 02/05/2013 8:10:54 AM PST by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: DManA
The fact is, DManA, that things are happening in the current culture that produce all manner of negative externalities.

If a child is conceived via surrogate and raised by inverts and the law does not provide for his inheritance, why should that child be punished for doing absolutely nothing wrong?

This is what is meant by "the weakest" - children who are being put in terrible situations by immoral people should be protected.

Ignoring the problem will not make it just go away.

Remember also that this prelate is in an advisory role - his statements are not "doctrine" and are attempts to deal with larger moral issues.

14 posted on 02/05/2013 8:13:26 AM PST by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: fractionated

Are they going to sell indulgences like they did in the Middle Ages?


15 posted on 02/05/2013 8:17:36 AM PST by GingisK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

Why be reasonable and tell the truth when you can just bash the Catholic Church?


16 posted on 02/05/2013 8:17:52 AM PST by EEGator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye McFrog
BM, if you don't bother to read with comprehension and react without knowledge, you are going to get criticized.

Do you not understand, at your age, that media articles consist mostly of spin?

And that what someone actually says, as opposed to what the media is trying to make them say, is more important?

And that the media deliberately quotes people selectively to twist their words?

And that the media conveniently leaves out important details that would sabotage their entire spin if they were mentioned?

Why is it that self-described conservatives take news stories at face value, when they should know better?

17 posted on 02/05/2013 8:18:05 AM PST by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
Why is it that self-described conservatives take news stories at face value, when they should know better?

Because some stories just tickle their templates.

18 posted on 02/05/2013 8:23:51 AM PST by COBOL2Java (Fighting Obama without Boehner & McConnell is like going deer hunting without your accordion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: fractionated

I’m not a Catholic, however this is a classic hit piece. What he is saying is marriage in the biblical sense and marriage in the legal sense are two different things.

Homosexuals use the law to subvert. They have a long history of subverting words to promote their agenda. The term marriage is just the latest. They have a bent against God and will use any means to warp the law and religion to fit their life style.


19 posted on 02/05/2013 8:24:26 AM PST by PJammers (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EEGator
Thank you.

His comments were widely seen as a reference to gay couples.

Which is media code for: "in point of fact, he made no such reference whatever, but we wish that he did, so we're just going to imply that he did."

Is it possible, instead, that for every "gay couple" in Europe there are a 100 or more couples consisting of a man and a woman who are living together without benefit of marriage, who have had multiple children by different partners, who are no longer together but who are nominally raising a mutual child, etc.?

That maybe his core comments were about the 99% of cases and not just focused solely on the 1% of cases?

20 posted on 02/05/2013 8:25:04 AM PST by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: PJammers

Good post.


21 posted on 02/05/2013 8:27:14 AM PST by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

Some people just love bashing the church. I’ll bet most didn’t even read the article, let alone comprehend the spin in it.


22 posted on 02/05/2013 8:30:56 AM PST by EEGator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

Thank you.

Unfortunately the press has painted a huge target on my Catholic brothers. We need to recognize it for what it is and stand united against such slander.


23 posted on 02/05/2013 8:41:22 AM PST by PJammers (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: DManA

(*sigh*) Yes... here we go again, with the thoughtless canards.

You might as well say that you (personally) “parade as Gospel” the bits of the Bible you like, but ignore all the “embarrassing apparent contradictions and awkward bits” of the Bible which don’t gel with your preconceived notions. Have some sense.


24 posted on 02/05/2013 8:42:11 AM PST by paladinan (Rule #1: There is a God. Rule #2: It isn't you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: fractionated

Good...They are finally steeping out from behind the curtain...

A couple of heteros cohabiting is a mortal sin...A couple of queer fellas, even priests, not so much...


25 posted on 02/05/2013 8:43:23 AM PST by Iscool (I love animals...barbequed, fried, grilled, stewed,,,,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Iscool
You are exactly the sort of rube the MSM was hoping for with this article.

Congratulations on living down to their expectations.

26 posted on 02/05/2013 8:48:55 AM PST by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Neoliberalnot; KC_Lion
Toothless white trash making inroads with the vatican.

That was 1)uncalled for (what does "toothless white trash" have to do with the story?), 2)cowardly (the only ethnic group it's safe to bash), and 3)ignores the fact that "toothless white trash" don't exactly have the reputation of being "gay"-friendly.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

27 posted on 02/05/2013 8:59:28 AM PST by Zionist Conspirator (Ki-hagoy vehamamlakhah 'asher lo'-ya`avdukh yove'du; vehagoyim charov yecheravu!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator

Oh, this thread is going to be fun.


28 posted on 02/05/2013 9:02:51 AM PST by KC_Lion (Build the America you want to live in at your address, and keep looking up.-Sarah Palin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: paladinan; KC_Lion
You might as well say that you (personally) “parade as Gospel” the bits of the Bible you like, but ignore all the “embarrassing apparent contradictions and awkward bits” of the Bible which don’t gel with your preconceived notions. Have some sense.

"Apparent contradictions?" You mean "errors" and "mistakes?" And "development?" And "mythology?"

American Catholics have allowed Protestants to make them allergic to the Bible.

29 posted on 02/05/2013 9:05:25 AM PST by Zionist Conspirator (Ki-hagoy vehamamlakhah 'asher lo'-ya`avdukh yove'du; vehagoyim charov yecheravu!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
You are exactly the sort of rube the MSM was hoping for with this article.

I never expected to see you use the word "rube" in this fashion, wideawake.

I am disappointed.

30 posted on 02/05/2013 9:07:50 AM PST by Zionist Conspirator (Ki-hagoy vehamamlakhah 'asher lo'-ya`avdukh yove'du; vehagoyim charov yecheravu!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator
I used "rube" in the circus/carnival sense of a "mark" - an uninformed dullard whom a carny can fleece of his money.

It has nothing to do with ancestry or geographic provenance - PT Barnum did not say that the suckers who are born every minute come exclusively from any particular region or clime.

31 posted on 02/05/2013 9:12:54 AM PST by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: KC_Lion
Oh, this thread is going to be fun.

No it's not. Catholic FReepers are going to devote themselves to reacting to a media attack on their Church by making absolutely unnecessary attacks on rural America and on Biblical inerrancy.

For all the chest-thumping about being "the one true universal church" there sure is a lot of bigotry towards the same group the Left hates more than any other. Coincidence?

And worst of all, any response, any objection, is defined as "anti-Catholic bigotry." It's open season on "rednecks" by their "fellow conservatives" in the "one true church," and those "rednecks" can just shut up and take it.

I've never in my life encountered a nastier group of people than many of the Catholics on Free Republic.

32 posted on 02/05/2013 9:13:49 AM PST by Zionist Conspirator (Ki-hagoy vehamamlakhah 'asher lo'-ya`avdukh yove'du; vehagoyim charov yecheravu!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator
Zionist Conspirator wrote, in reply to my comment:

"Apparent contradictions?" You mean "errors" and "mistakes?" And "development?" And "mythology?"

No, I mean nothing of the sort. Had I meant anything of the sort, I would have said so (and I would have been a heretic, thereby, and flatly against the true teaching of the Catholic Church). I realise that there are a great many clueless Catholics (including many who are/were teaching in Catholic seminaries) who teach/believe such modernist rubbish (e.g. "the Bible isn't the inspired, inerrant written Word of God", etc.)... but I assure you, I'm not of their number.

Rather, I was pointing out that anyone could throw similar thoughtless, self-sealing, fallacious nonsense at "DManA" as he chose to throw at Catholics. I meant no disrespect toward faithful Protestants, or even to him; that was merely to illustrate the point (i.e. that his comment was silly and illogical, if not flatly anti-Catholic).
33 posted on 02/05/2013 9:23:56 AM PST by paladinan (Rule #1: There is a God. Rule #2: It isn't you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: fractionated

The homosexuals have an agenda. The Church is a target. We need a united defense against it. Instead we sit around and compare planks in our eyes.


34 posted on 02/05/2013 9:49:26 AM PST by PJammers (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fractionated

To me, this reads like a hit piece with nothing but spin.


35 posted on 02/05/2013 9:50:18 AM PST by Gator113 ( REGISTER THE DAMN LIBERALS and leave my guns alone!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuffaloJack; Sybeck1; MichaelCorleone; Buckeye McFrog
Did any of you guys read what the guy, Mons. Vincenzo Paglia, actually said, in contrast to the expansion, highlighting, and extension and bolding-for-emphasis suggested by the Agency France-Presse writer?

He said that, NOT mnrriage, but "individual law" and "property law" could be applied to ensure the rights of parties in a non-marital cohabitation case. He did not justify sexual cohabitation. He did not address "same sex' sexual cohabitation. He just said that if people are living together w/o out being under marriage law, they'd have to handle disputes (e.g. concerning propety) under some other law.

Is this Paglia guy teaching Catholic doctrine? No.

Is he giving Catholic policy directives? No.

Has he any authority to do anything whatsoever about this as "The Church"? No.

Running around in circles yodeling "the Catholic Church is doomed" plays right into the hands of the secular press. They jerk your strings, you jump.

Must be fun to be a journalist when you can make people twitch any way you want.

36 posted on 02/05/2013 10:13:55 AM PST by Mrs. Don-o (Get a grip.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
Running around in circles yodeling "the Catholic Church is doomed" plays right into the hands of the secular press. They jerk your strings, you jump.

On the topic of Catholicism, a certain set of people are looking for any excuse to jump. A journalist jerks their strings, they jump. The Pope catches cold, they jump. It's Thursday and it's raining, they jump.

When all you have is a hammer, every problem is a nail. When your whole theology is built around the proposition that Rome is the Whore of Babylon, every event and every news story confirms it.

37 posted on 02/05/2013 10:26:12 AM PST by Campion ("Social justice" begins in the womb)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

According to the article this person is ‘The Vatican’s top official on family policy’, is he not?

He said: “I think this is a terrain that politicians should begin to approach,” said the archbishop, adding that legal rights for non-traditional families would “prevent injustice against the weakest”.

In today’s America, ‘non-traditional families’ mean same-sex parents. Just because the word ‘homosexual’ isn’t specifically used doesn’t mean the door won’t be open for them. Yes, it could mean single mother/fatherhood, or a single father with a live-in nanny (substitute mother), but in most people’s minds that is not the case I don’t think.

Maybe I’m wrong, and I hope I am, but it does appear some elders are falling away from Church doctorine.


38 posted on 02/05/2013 10:36:54 AM PST by MichaelCorleone (A return to Jesus and prayer in the schools is the only way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye McFrog
Buckeye, I'm respectfully assuming I can reason with you. Please look at the parts that are in quotes
as opposed to the parts that are not.

Despite the slap-you-cheeks headline, this Fr. Paglia said nothing about sodomy, boy-boy or boy-girl sexual cohabitation in particular, etc. etc. He was talking about the availability of laws other than marriage laws to deal with parties sharing a domicile.

That could be a mother and adult son, that could be two chaste maiden ladies, that could be a couple of guys with no known sharing of anything else except the refrigerator, it could be a pair of twin sisters, that could be a disabled homecare patient with a resident caregiver who's also his aunt.

He did not specify sexual preconditions or recognition.

He said that individual laws and property laws could address issues involving this class of people: people who share a home but are not covered by marriage law.

What he said was so unremarkable, that Agency France-Presse had to add 12 more paragraphs to make it seem that he said something salesworthy at the newsstands.

They even managed to mangle a reference to the Catechism. The Catechism does not say that there can be "no" "discrimination" against gays. It says there can be no >"unjust" discrimination, meaning something that has nothing to do with the person's sexuality per se, such as: a hospital can't refuse to treat a gay boy who was injured in a train wreck.

Yeah, if you stare at the screen enough, you can see I'm folding my hands and praying for patience. In between rolling my eyes.

39 posted on 02/05/2013 11:02:56 AM PST by Mrs. Don-o ("In retrospect it becomes clear that hindsight is definitely overrated!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye McFrog
Buckeye, I'm respectfully assuming I can reason with you. Please look at the parts that are in quotes
as opposed to the parts that are not.

Despite the slap-you-cheeks headline, this Fr. Paglia said nothing about sodomy, boy-boy or boy-girl sexual cohabitation in particular, etc. etc. He was talking about the availability of laws other than marriage laws to deal with parties sharing a domicile.

That could be a mother and adult son, that could be two chaste maiden ladies, that could be a couple of guys with no known sharing of anything else except the refrigerator, it could be a pair of twin sisters, that could be a disabled homecare patient with a resident caregiver who's also his aunt.

He did not specify sexual preconditions or recognition.

He said that individual laws and property laws could address issues involving this class of people: people who share a home but are not covered by marriage law.

What he said was so unremarkable, that Agency France-Presse had to add 12 more paragraphs to make it seem that he said something salesworthy at the newsstands.

They even managed to mangle a reference to the Catechism. The Catechism does not say that there can be "no" "discrimination" against gays. It says there can be no >"unjust" discrimination, meaning something that has nothing to do with the person's sexuality per se, such as: a hospital can't refuse to treat a gay boy who was injured in a train wreck.

Yeah, if you stare at the screen enough, you can see I'm folding my hands and praying for patience. In between rolling my eyes.

40 posted on 02/05/2013 11:03:13 AM PST by Mrs. Don-o ("In retrospect it becomes clear that hindsight is definitely overrated!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: MichaelCorleone
MIchael, I'll give you he's the official family policy guy. That does not mean that he just published a family-policy teaching document, filed a family-policy brief, or endorsed a hot new family-policy legislative proposal. Neither did he address special recognition of sexually perverse unions, nor the awarding of benefits or incentives toward unchastity.

He was talking about unspecified living together and "alternative" families, which could have meant gay if he'd said "gay," but he didn't. So it could be grandma-headed families, not uncomon across the six inhabited continents.

Read #39 and grant me that he didn't say anything new or radical. Agency France-Presse grabbed a pull-away quote and made it into an "issue." They do sell newspapers. Sheesh.

41 posted on 02/05/2013 11:17:16 AM PST by Mrs. Don-o ("You can be on the right track and still get hit by a train.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: fractionated
I LOVE seeing these type of sensationalist articles concerning the Catholic Church in these forums. It's handy for taking note of which Freepers are mindlessly irrational cowardly anti-Catholic bigots and makes it easier for me to see whose opinion on other matters I should have no respect for and dismiss out of hand in the future. Got a few more to add to my list. Thanks!


42 posted on 02/05/2013 11:19:20 AM PST by fidelis (Zonie and USAF Cold Warrior)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

Okay, Mrs. D.

I will grant you there’s nothing radical or new.

For the record I’m a life-long Catholic. I represent the Church directly or indirectly in many ways, so I have no interest in seeing its destruction.

Neither do I want division between us. Especially in these times, we must have unity.


43 posted on 02/05/2013 11:32:28 AM PST by MichaelCorleone (A return to Jesus and prayer in the schools is the only way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: MichaelCorleone; Buckeye McFrog
One more time:

I assume you are aware that the Catholic Church opposes all artificial reproductive technologies. By which we do NOT mean legitimate therapies which restore the fertility of the conjugal couple. What we oppose is: reproductive technologies which substitute for gererative marital sexual union. IVF, artifical insemination, reproductive concubinage a.k.a. "surrogacy." We oppose them all. It is unfortunate that only the Catholic Church, as far as I know, takes this principled stand.

UNfortuntely, people do reproduce using non-sexual-union technologies. That means that kids are confected who have a blurred group of caring or uncaring adults whose relations are ambiguous in law: the genetic father, the legal father, the social role-model father, the gay co-father, the genetic mother, the gestational mother, the legal mother, the lactational and infant-bonding mother, the lesbian mother's ex-partner, the father's girlfriend who has a real emotional attachment, whatever. This could be a dozen different people.

This happenms because people do not follow the norms of Divine and Natural Law.

So consequently, when these self-serving adults' relationships hit the rocks, these lifestyle-accessory children can be left without their rights protected. (Just as they were conceived without their rights protected.) At some point, the law has to step into this mess and adjudicate to save what can be salvaged of the child's natural rights.

Who is responsible for providing for him, unles the law steps in?

From whom can he inherit?

Who can control his educational options? Who can, and cannot, sign for his medical treatment?

This is who Fr. Paglia is talking about when he refers to "the weakest" party in a non-traditional marriage. This is the person whose rights need special protection.

I suppose Mons. Paglia should say "They were conceived in a non-traditional family: they have no rights any adult is bound to respect"?? Would that be better?

44 posted on 02/05/2013 11:39:50 AM PST by Mrs. Don-o ("You can be on the right track and still get hit by a train.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: fractionated

How about the union of clergy and little boys?


45 posted on 02/05/2013 11:42:21 AM PST by AppyPappy (You never see a massacre at a gun show.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy

Marriage law is not applicable there. It’s pretty much covered by criminal law.


46 posted on 02/05/2013 11:56:15 AM PST by Mrs. Don-o ("You can be on the right track and still get hit by a train.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

For those actually paying attention to the Church’s position on the issue of gay marriage:

“Pope Benedict used his annual Christmas message to denounce gay marriage, saying that it destroyed the “essence of the human creature.”

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/pope-denounces-gay-marriage-annual-xmas-message-article-1.1225960


47 posted on 02/05/2013 10:48:37 PM PST by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

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