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

Skip to comments.

U.S. Supreme Court wipes out Proposition 8's gay marriage ban
MercuryNews.com ^ | June 26, 2013 | Howard Mintz

Posted on 06/26/2013 7:41:40 AM PDT by Deo volente

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-312 next last
To: fwdude

No. It’s pretty much only the CA AG or Governor that has standing.


101 posted on 06/26/2013 8:21:55 AM PDT by RIghtwardHo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Orangedog

For most of Western history, marriage was a private contract between two families. Until the 16th-century, Christian churches accepted the validity of a marriage on the basis of a couple’s declarations. If two people claimed that they had exchanged marital vows—even without witnesses—the Catholic Church accepted that they were validly married.
Marriage licenses were introduced in the 14th century, to allow the usual notice period under banns to be waived, on payment of a fee and accompanied by a sworn declaration, that there was no canonical impediment to the marriage. Licenses were usually granted by an archbishop, bishop or archdeacon.
In the United States, until the mid-19th century, common-law marriages were recognized as valid, but thereafter some states began to invalidate common-law marriages. Common-law marriages, if recognized, are valid, notwithstanding the absence of a marriage license. The requirement for a marriage license was used as a mechanism to prohibit whites from marrying blacks, mulattos, Japanese, Chinese, Native Americans, Mongolians, Malays or Filipinos. By the 1920s, 38 states used the mechanism.
Some groups believe that the requirement to obtain a marriage license is unnecessary and/or immoral. The Libertarian Party, for instance, believes that all marriages should be civil, not requiring sanction from the state.[8][9] Libertarians argue that marriage is a right, and that by allowing the state to exercise control over marriage, it is implied that we merely have privilege, not the right, to marry. As an example, those born in the US receive a birth certificate, not a birth license.[10] Some Christian groups also argue that a marriage is a contract between a man and a woman presided over by the Christian God, so no authorization from the state is required. In some US states, the state is cited as a party in the marriage contract[11] which is seen by some as an infringement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_licence


102 posted on 06/26/2013 8:22:36 AM PDT by Rusty0604
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Rusty0604

Does this mean that the government must recognize polygamous unions that are recognized internationally?


103 posted on 06/26/2013 8:23:28 AM PDT by AppyPappy (Obama: What did I not know and when did I not know it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: JimSEA

“Perhaps we have a hint of what the NSA has learned about Roberts and how he is controlled.”

When he flipped and allowed Obozo care, a lot of us wondered what pictures and other stuff the Chicago thugs had to blackmail him.

We left out emails, phone calls and other electronic communication monitored by No Such Agency.


104 posted on 06/26/2013 8:23:32 AM PDT by Grampa Dave (Having a discussion with liberals is like shearing pigs. Lots of squealing & little fleece!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Orangedog
Article 1, section 8 has been ignored (Totally) since the Progressive Era Presidents. What else do you have?

DOMA is just a symptom, the only aspect that has changed concerning Feds and marriage today is that they EXPANDED coverage for perverts, yet you claim others wise.

Either you are a troll, closet homosexual agenda pusher, or just plain ignorant.
105 posted on 06/26/2013 8:23:38 AM PDT by rollo tomasi (Working hard to pay for deadbeats and corrupt politicians.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Deo volente
Statement: "U.S. Supreme Court wipes out Proposition 8's gay marriage ban"

Response: Of course! Did any rational person actually believe that the court would support the provision?

Comment: As the great historian stated: "In declining states the leadership intuitively choses the most harmful course of action."-1888

106 posted on 06/26/2013 8:23:40 AM PDT by AEMILIUS PAULUS (It is a shame that when these people give a riot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: T-Bird45
A technical ruling on standing as a result of the Governator and CA AG refusing to do their jobs and follow the results of a proposition election.

President Obama also refused to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act.

President Obama also refuses to uphold the Constitution, protect this nation from terrorist threats or illegal immigration.

Etc etc.

There is no accountability when those elected to serve the public DO NOT DO THE JOB THEY HAVE SWORN TO DO. "You have no standing to challenge them". BULLSTALIN.

Impeachment proceedings should begin immediately against those who refuse to do their damn job.

107 posted on 06/26/2013 8:23:42 AM PDT by a fool in paradise (America 2013 - STUCK ON STUPID)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: McBuff; rollo tomasi

Yeah, well you wanted your “living, breathing document” to give power to Mordor on the Potomac that wasn’t spelled out in article 1, section 3. And you got it. You got to learn the hard way on this one.


108 posted on 06/26/2013 8:24:36 AM PDT by Orangedog (An optimist is someone who tells you to 'cheer up' when things are going his way)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: RC one

And it shouldn’t be any of the gov’t business.
In the United States, until the mid-19th century, common-law marriages were recognized as valid, but thereafter some states began to invalidate common-law marriages. Common-law marriages, if recognized, are valid, notwithstanding the absence of a marriage license. The requirement for a marriage license was used as a mechanism to prohibit whites from marrying blacks, mulattos, Japanese, Chinese, Native Americans, Mongolians, Malays or Filipinos. By the 1920s, 38 states used the mechanism.


109 posted on 06/26/2013 8:25:16 AM PDT by Rusty0604
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
"A very dark day. Words cannot express the depth of my disgust and loathing for Roberts. I can only hope now for something (whatever it/they might be) that will bring this monstrous evil to an end."

God knows I have my own sins, but this country deserves judgement. Some even say this is it.

110 posted on 06/26/2013 8:25:34 AM PDT by CatherineofAragon ((Support Christian white males----the architects of the jewel known as Western Civilization).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise

This happened in California before. The state officials refuse to support the will of the people as expressed at the ballot box.

We passed prop 187 to restrict benefits for illegal aliens.

Gay Davis refused to defend it in court. That is the biggest contribution to the mess we have been in in Cal even before OB, the hero of benghazi came along.


111 posted on 06/26/2013 8:26:06 AM PDT by morphing libertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: liberalh8ter
Which begs the question....who are they serving?

It could be that they're serving Satan*, it could be that they've forgotten their first love, or it could be that they're merely lukewarm and Jesus will vomit you out of my mouth.

* There are those who claim that the LDS church is this way; I'm more of the opinion that it's horribly corrupted but that the Holy Spirit is more powerful than that corruption and could save someone through/despite those corrupted teachings.

112 posted on 06/26/2013 8:27:25 AM 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 100 | View Replies]

To: RIghtwardHo

The idea that a group can get an initiative on the ballot and not defend it in court is ludicrous.*

This is the same BS about OB, the hero of benghazi’s eligibility.

We are entitled to a legal and honest election, but we have no standing to claim one in court.


113 posted on 06/26/2013 8:27:54 AM PDT by morphing libertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: RIghtwardHo
We’ve been that since Marbury v. Madison.

The last half of that case is an excellent read... I'll have to [re]read the first though.

114 posted on 06/26/2013 8:28:16 AM 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 99 | View Replies]

To: rollo tomasi
Article 1, section 8 has been ignored (Totally) since the Progressive Era Presidents. What else do you have?

What else should I need? There was all that screaming and crying for drug wars and favors for married people and tax breaksbfor whelping out a litter, and telling people how to live. Now you get one another one of these extra-constitutional boondoggles blow up in your faces and you blame...me. Yeah, that works.

115 posted on 06/26/2013 8:30:55 AM PDT by Orangedog (An optimist is someone who tells you to 'cheer up' when things are going his way)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head
We are witnessing two things.

1) The tyranny of specific judiciary members..co-opting the will of the people which is lawfully taken according to the laws of their soveriegn state.

2) The compromising of those same judiciary by a criminal, thugish enterprise in this current administration which is, IMHO, either bribing or coersing them to vote as they direct.

I agree. But the degree of infiltration is bi-partisan, extends to Congress itself, Public Schools, and the military-industrial complex Ike warned us about.

If I may add additional aiders and abetters in facilitating this tyranny and obvious Treason:

The collusion/collaboration of the ubiquitous propaganda Organ of the Mainstream Media print, TV, and cyber-social weaponry, its tentacles: The "Entertainment Industry" and Pop Culture. Moreover, the traditional Judeo-Christian leadership has been marginalized, co-opted, and intimidated.

Eventually we must make a stand, our Alamo, our Stalingrad...or ALL -- both liberal and conservative -- WILL become slaves.

116 posted on 06/26/2013 8:31:05 AM PDT by USS Johnston (Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be bought at the price of chains & slavery? - Patrick Henry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Orangedog

Reality is not your strong point I guess.

Your rigid interpretation concerning a document whose Spirit was destroyed long ago is of no value since the Feds have been regulating marriage for decades before DOMA. Your cherry picking/defending the hypocrisy is rather a curious one.


117 posted on 06/26/2013 8:31:14 AM PDT by rollo tomasi (Working hard to pay for deadbeats and corrupt politicians.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: ssaftler
Can anyone on this board tell me with a straight face that they are the least bit surprised by this judicial overreach?

I don't think it's judicial over-reach. It is more like the court punting back to the states on hard cases; which has been the trend since Roberts took over. If you look at many of the rulings, even obamacare, many of the decisions, both positive and negative in the eyes of conservatives, always seem to be directed back to the state level for a fresh journey to the SC, or for the states to fix.

This whole chain of events is leading to a showdown on the 10th Amendment. I think this will come to a head sometime in 2014, as the Feds start hammering states that have passed nullification laws against obamacare. The obamacare showdown will come before one on the 2nd Amendment, simply because there is more wide spread revolt amongst the states on the matter.

As far as the case on Prop 8, as Robert's himself said, "Elections have consequences". Maybe as the queers get married in droves in CA the vast majority of Californians that continually elect hard core socialists will get a clue. THEY DO NOT CARE ABOUT THEM OR THEIR MORALS AND WISHES.

118 posted on 06/26/2013 8:33:47 AM PDT by Turbo Pig (...to close with and destroy the enemy...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Orangedog

The extra-constitutional boondoggle was a symptom of other extra-constitutional boondoggles. Your hypocrisy is picking one extra-constitutional boondoggle and applauding the expansion. Yeah that works.


119 posted on 06/26/2013 8:34:22 AM PDT by rollo tomasi (Working hard to pay for deadbeats and corrupt politicians.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: momincombatboots

I don’t think I could ever leave America. But the country is indeed a putrid, dying shell of what it once was, and is now clearly devolving into abject evil. I’ll just bide my time until it all falls, waiting to pick up arms when some feasible self-survival/secession movement might arrive.


120 posted on 06/26/2013 8:35:45 AM PDT by greene66
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: rollo tomasi

I’m not cherry picking. I’ve been pretty consistent in my position. Instead of fighting to get the feds out of something they have no business in, you would rather just have the rules changed again so you can exclude the homosexuals from fedgovs unconstitutional favors you get at the expense of single people.


121 posted on 06/26/2013 8:37:51 AM PDT by Orangedog (An optimist is someone who tells you to 'cheer up' when things are going his way)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: The Great RJ

It is like we are back in 1st century instead of 21st century.


122 posted on 06/26/2013 8:38:56 AM PDT by scbison
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: rollo tomasi

Find a post where I said fedgov has any constitutional authority in marriage, straight, homosexual or otherwise. You’re so locked into the fake left/right BS you see hypocrosy where there is none.


123 posted on 06/26/2013 8:40:16 AM PDT by Orangedog (An optimist is someone who tells you to 'cheer up' when things are going his way)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

No wonder so many people find it a fool’s errand to take the time to vote.


124 posted on 06/26/2013 8:41:46 AM PDT by Neoliberalnot (Marxism works well only with the uneducated and the unarmed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: RIghtwardHo

I think many Conservatives took this hook, line and sinker. The DOMA was a HUGE mistake, bringing the Federal Gov’t into a State issue, thus bolstering the argument that Marriage is a RIGHT.


125 posted on 06/26/2013 8:41:52 AM PDT by cumbo78
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Orangedog

I could agree with you except for the fact that the homosexual activists are the ones pushing this. The homosexual activists are the ones trying to force the government to define marriage in a certain way.

So, if we say government should get out of the business of marriage, do you really think the homosexual activists would allow that? They would still be in court on this issue if we tried to delete any laws on marriage.


126 posted on 06/26/2013 8:42:11 AM PDT by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: greene66

Agree, I have a son almost military age..At one time, I would have been proud if he enlisted.. Now, I will do everything in power to persuade him not to join, if he ever wants to.


127 posted on 06/26/2013 8:42:38 AM PDT by scbison
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: RIghtwardHo

The CA AG or Governor should not have veto power over the people’s vote, and that is basically what they did.


128 posted on 06/26/2013 8:44:39 AM PDT by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: cumbo78
I think many Conservatives took this hook, line and sinker. The DOMA was a HUGE mistake, bringing the Federal Gov’t into a State issue, thus bolstering the argument that Marriage is a RIGHT.

IMHO, Anthony Comstock made the same mistake when he got the federal government involved in the business of birth control. An even bigger mistake was when he got abortion declared a form of birth control (instead of the state crime of murder) so that he could try to regulate that, too.

129 posted on 06/26/2013 8:46:56 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
My beloved Aunt has recently completed her conversion to the LDS after leaving the Catholic Church and spending some time at a nondenominational Church. Her reasons for leaving the Catholic Church are valid - for her - and she is very happy now. I really know nothing about LDS except some things that she has shared with me.
130 posted on 06/26/2013 8:47:14 AM PDT by liberalh8ter (The only difference between flash mob 'urban yutes' and U.S. politicians is the hoodies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy

I posted that history because in the not too distant past marriage was usually a private contract between a man and a woman and usually God. Society recognized it as a marriage, and the gov’t didn’t have any business in it. I imagine that back then, not so long ago, if 2 men ran around saying they were married, most of society would just have not recognized it as a marriage and a few good laughs would be had. But they wouldn’t be going to court demanding recognition, demanding that gay marriage be taught in school, demanding that businesses do the floral arrangements for their wedding, because the gov’t wasn’t involved in it to begin with. Marriage started out as a religious institution, not a legal one.


131 posted on 06/26/2013 8:48:16 AM PDT by Rusty0604
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: USS Johnston

Agreed completely. Things are accellerating. Ibelieve a storm is coming sooner rather than later and pray we and ours are prepared for it.


132 posted on 06/26/2013 8:49:41 AM PDT by Jeff Head
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Orangedog
Also when was Article I, Section 8 ever headed, lol? I will give you an easy ending to that section (Although events before could be debated), the Louisiana Purchase. Now work your way forward from there and start blaming voters/Judicial Branch for the overreach.

Next, think about how the feds just expanded marriage.

Hypocritical libertarians are out to lunch with what just happened. Or maybe they just favor the feds allowing expanded benefits of those in homosexual "marriages".

What is your pick, hypocrisy or you favor the Feds recognizing homosexual "marriage"? BTW, the reality is not the Judicial Branch not recognizing/regulating marriage, other Federal laws do that which they ignore based on their own biases, the reality is that the Feds expanded/unregulated the meaning. Either way, the Feds are still in the marriage business.
133 posted on 06/26/2013 8:50:39 AM PDT by rollo tomasi (Working hard to pay for deadbeats and corrupt politicians.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy
"Does this mean that the government must recognize polygamous unions that are recognized internationally?"

Anything goes it seems. They just legalized sodomy.

134 posted on 06/26/2013 8:50:43 AM PDT by ex-snook (God is Love)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: scbison

I know. With Obama’s faggotization of the military, the “uniform” no longer carries the awe and respect it used to for me.


135 posted on 06/26/2013 8:50:53 AM PDT by greene66
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego

Get rid of the favors fedgov gives married people for being married and there’s nothing to fight over with the homosexuals. It’s the polygamous relationship y’all have with your spouse and the government you need to deal with, not the homersexuals.


136 posted on 06/26/2013 8:51:18 AM PDT by Orangedog (An optimist is someone who tells you to 'cheer up' when things are going his way)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: liberalh8ter
My beloved Aunt has recently completed her conversion to the LDS after leaving the Catholic Church and spending some time at a nondenominational Church. Her reasons for leaving the Catholic Church are valid - for her - and she is very happy now. I really know nothing about LDS except some things that she has shared with me.

*nod* — I will say this, as for politics the Mormon church seems more willing to call its political leaders to task than the Catholic Church... but that is a rather backhanded complement given that the Catholic church has the like of Pelosi (the abortion fanatic) and does nothing to correct her.

137 posted on 06/26/2013 8:52:58 AM 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 130 | View Replies]

To: Deo volente; P-Marlowe; narses

This is so ridiculous. They just do what they want.

In the one case, supposedly they are all about the states getting to decide for themselves. California decided. But, now they’re saying that California can’t decide for itself if it’s power elite don’t agree to defend their decision. So, it isn’t really about states rights. It’s about using whatever justification is necessary to get to the desired result.

Marlowe is right. This has become demonic.

Revolution is coming.


138 posted on 06/26/2013 8:53:25 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True supporters of our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Orangedog
"Find a post where I said fedgov has any constitutional authority in marriage, straight, homosexual or otherwise."

Well do not have to look back far, every single one of your posts on this thread favors expanding federal marriage, yet your smoky Libertarian brain cannot wrap your rational around that concept.
139 posted on 06/26/2013 8:53:50 AM PDT by rollo tomasi (Working hard to pay for deadbeats and corrupt politicians.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: txrangerette

They have no standing at the federal level, but did it overturn the state law allowing plantiffs who supported/organized the proposition to defend it in state court?


140 posted on 06/26/2013 8:55:02 AM PDT by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: greene66

I doubt I will live long enough to see that... that is a very long multi- generational process.


141 posted on 06/26/2013 8:55:58 AM PDT by momincombatboots (Back to West by G-d Virginia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: rollo tomasi

You might want to go look up hypocrisy because you are looking foolish.

I’m not advocating for the homosexuals and you know it.


142 posted on 06/26/2013 8:56:26 AM PDT by Orangedog (An optimist is someone who tells you to 'cheer up' when things are going his way)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego

Exactly. The left will never give up state involvement. The state needs to be involved so there is a way to punish and keep punishing those who won’t buy into whatever impossibility the state puts forth as marriage.

Freegards


143 posted on 06/26/2013 8:56:28 AM PDT by Ransomed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Orangedog

LOL, kudos to you, sir, to point out the hypocrisy of those ‘in our own camp’.


144 posted on 06/26/2013 8:56:48 AM PDT by i_robot73 (We hold that all individuals have the Right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives - LP.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: RIghtwardHo

Right, so look at the evil Jerry Brown did to the vote of his own people. One POS liberal pissed on his own citizens.


145 posted on 06/26/2013 8:57:37 AM PDT by Williams (No Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: cumbo78

We could lever this the opposite way as well. Simply allow federal benefits to construe to federal employees only. No spouse, children, etc.

Make it part of the undoing of Obamacare and toss in insurance portability and the Commerce Clause prohibition against state’s creating intrastate monopolies via licensing/permitting/zoning processes.

America is supposed to be a giant free trade zone. Why can’t you buy insurance nationally or use a doctor from any state you wish anywhere in the country, including your home state?


146 posted on 06/26/2013 8:57:55 AM PDT by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Orangedog
"Instead of fighting to get the feds out of something they have no business in."

How do you fight the 16th Amendment and the Social Security act? By voting for Libertarians? Yeah, that is a real effective tactic.

Tell me, how can one Court allow one particular definition of marriage (Read the Social Security Act please), then redefine that definition 70+ years later?
147 posted on 06/26/2013 8:57:59 AM PDT by rollo tomasi (Working hard to pay for deadbeats and corrupt politicians.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Orangedog
Yeah, well you wanted your “living, breathing document” to give power to Mordor on the Potomac that wasn’t spelled out in article 1, section

You misunderstood what I said. . .hell, I was agreeing with you. . and I was also just indicating that children are hurt the most by today's ruling, that's all. . .you're angry, I'm angry.. .I sure as hell don't subscribe to the "living and breathing" crap. . .so why don't you point that thing at the real enemy, Mr. Ready-Fire-Aim guy!!

148 posted on 06/26/2013 8:59:56 AM PDT by McBuff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: redangus

Excellent question. How can an animal, plant or the environment in general have ‘standing’? The greenies don’t have standing either in their cases and never have.

I’d like to see more on this. It might be a reverse Pandora’s box.


149 posted on 06/26/2013 9:02:03 AM PDT by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: i_robot73
Do you actually favor expanding the Feds definition of “marriage”? You are the hypocrite or closet pervert. DOMA was a firewall of law in which the Federal government already established the recognition of matrimony through various laws and the 16th via the powers granted to Congress (Tax code). DOMA just protected that definition, not created the Feds recognition of matrimony. The reality of a Constitution on life-support was shattered during the Progressive Era. Now we have mob rule and expansions favored by convoluted libertarians.
150 posted on 06/26/2013 9:06:17 AM PDT by rollo tomasi (Working hard to pay for deadbeats and corrupt politicians.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-312 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