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

Skip to comments.

End Government Recognition of Marriage
16 July 2004 | Me

Posted on 07/16/2004 8:09:37 AM PDT by Voice in your head

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-191 next last
To: Sam the Sham
"This is the position of libertarians generally extreme secularist cultural liberals) who don't have the guts to say they want sodomite marriage."

I've never seen this point of view published or heard it spoken. Do you have a URL?

51 posted on 07/16/2004 9:39:57 AM PDT by Voice in your head ("The secret of Happiness is Freedom, and the secret of Freedom, Courage." - Thucydides)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: society-by-contract

Thanks. Some good points in there. Have you read anything that explores the disputes regarding social security benefits, employee benefit packages, etc?


52 posted on 07/16/2004 9:43:44 AM PDT by Voice in your head ("The secret of Happiness is Freedom, and the secret of Freedom, Courage." - Thucydides)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Batrachian
What they're trying to do is get official government approval of their "lifestyle".

I agree. However, I believe that they are also acting in concert with those who want to see all of our moral and legal traditions, marriage included, destroyed. While this may simply be "collateral damage" so far as the Homosexual Agenda is concerned, such tactics are also at the heart of the Left and their agenda.

I find it essential for me to oppose both of their agendas.

53 posted on 07/16/2004 9:44:23 AM PDT by FormerLib (Kosova: "land stolen from Serbs and given to terrorist killers in a futile attempt to appease them.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: ijcr

How does post #49 relate to my article?


54 posted on 07/16/2004 9:45:25 AM PDT by Voice in your head ("The secret of Happiness is Freedom, and the secret of Freedom, Courage." - Thucydides)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: asmith92008

Amen......you said it all!!!


55 posted on 07/16/2004 9:47:14 AM PDT by pollywog (Psalm 121;1 I Lift mine eyes to the hills from whence cometh my help.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Batrachian
"Homosexuals don't really care about marriage... What they're trying to do is get official government approval of their 'lifestyle'."

I totally agree with that. I think the most logical way to ensure that marriage remains sacred and protected is to have an institution with morals safeguard it. Government has no morals - it is a tool for the most dispicable elements in our society (politicians) and gleans its power by appealing to the lowest common denominator (majority of voters).

56 posted on 07/16/2004 9:49:46 AM PDT by Voice in your head ("The secret of Happiness is Freedom, and the secret of Freedom, Courage." - Thucydides)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: conserv13

>>I know several gay couples, and guess what? Their 'family life' is surprisingly similar to that of all the straight couples I know! They wake up, make coffee, walk the dog, go to work, come home, make dinner, watch tv, do the dishes, mow the lawn, etc...<<

Yeah, kind of like the "Odd Couple." Then again, neither can possibly produce kids, and would not be considered a married couple and family - Which is why marriage exists, and why the state has a vested interest in preserving and nurturing the next generation of good citizens.

Remember, homosexuality is not sex. It is sexual perversion and not to be tolerated as "normal and healthy," for it is neither.


57 posted on 07/16/2004 10:06:57 AM PDT by RobRoy (You only "know" what you experience. Everything else is mere belief.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Modernman

>>In places like the Netherlands and Scandinavia, marriage is in decline due to the pervasiveness of the socialist nanny-state which has eliminated the need for a stable two-parent family to provide for children.<<

And that is different from here in what way?


58 posted on 07/16/2004 10:09:43 AM PDT by RobRoy (You only "know" what you experience. Everything else is mere belief.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Voice in your head
Your argument that government recognition be withdrawn from
marriage is straight from Marxs' lips.

When you advocate for your ideas,you must also realize the possible consequences of your thoughts.

The rationale that marriage when removed from State protection will prosper fails to take into account inheritance rights,immigration issues, plus the over 1000
Federal benefits and occasionally set backs that are available for married couples.

As any Sociologist will admit marriage is the vehicle for wealth generation and as many have pointed out the fundamental building block of society in general.

At best your premise is poorly researched,flawed,and dangerous.At worst it is intentionally so.
59 posted on 07/16/2004 10:17:29 AM PDT by ijcr (Age and treachery will always overcome youth and ability.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: RobRoy
Then again, neither can possibly produce kids, and would not be considered a married couple and family - Which is why marriage exists, and why the state has a vested interest in preserving and nurturing the next generation of good citizens.

Maybe you're unaware of the fact that gay couples can adopt nearly everywhere in the US, and that lesbians can always find a sympathetic friend and a turkey baster. Quite a few have kids from a previous straight relationship. I hope that all of them are trying to raise their kids as good citizens.

In any case, are you going to make the kids in these relationships suffer because of the circumstances of their parents? And no, you're not going to be able to take all of these kids out of those homes and put them with Ozzie-and-Harriett families, there just aren't enough of them out there waiting to adopt non-infants.

60 posted on 07/16/2004 10:21:39 AM PDT by hunter112
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Voice in your head
Have you read anything that explores the disputes regarding social security benefits, employee benefit packages, etc?


As a voluntarist, I reject the idea of coercive government retirement schemes such as Social Security. As for private employers, that is their own business as to whether or not they want to provide benefits for private marriages.

61 posted on 07/16/2004 10:22:24 AM PDT by society-by-contract
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Sam the Sham
This is the position of libertarians (generally extreme secularist cultural liberals) who don't have the guts to say they want sodomite marriage


Oral sex is sodomy. Do you object to heterosexual oral sex (sodomy) within a state-sanctioned marriage?

62 posted on 07/16/2004 10:27:46 AM PDT by society-by-contract
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: ijcr
As any Sociologist will admit marriage is the vehicle for wealth generation and as many have pointed out the fundamental building block of society in general.

Family is, not marriage. It is a distinction that matters, and which many people here are oblivious to. "Marriage" is currently just a government bureaucratic institution, not to be confused with anything relating to "family".

Those two words stopped being synonymous a long time ago. Its time to stop pretending they are the same, because it certainly won't be true as long as the government is defining it. Marriage was nothing more than a popular social mechanism for achieving family. Family is not dependent on marriage, nor vice versa.

63 posted on 07/16/2004 10:28:40 AM PDT by tortoise (All these moments lost in time, like tears in the rain.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: RobRoy
And that is different from here in what way?

The welfare state in those places is bigger than in the US. As a result, marriage is in even worse shape. If our welfare/nanny-state keeps growing, marriage in this country will keep declining.

64 posted on 07/16/2004 10:51:51 AM PDT by Modernman ("I don't care to belong to a club that accepts people like me as members" -Groucho Marx)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: tortoise
Whoa,there hoss!

"Marriage" is currently just a government bureaucratic institution, not to be confused with anything relating to "family".

God defined marriage...and it is in the Common Good that government protects it.

Family is not dependent on marriage, nor vice versa.

May, I recommend a day in Probate Court...where vice versa,marriage and family meet in the arena of judicial mayhem.

65 posted on 07/16/2004 11:24:46 AM PDT by ijcr (Age and treachery will always overcome youth and ability.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: society-by-contract
"I reject the idea of coercive government retirement schemes such as Social Security. As for private employers, that is their own business as to whether or not they want to provide benefits for private marriages."

I agree. I'm just curious if you've read anything that discusses likely disputes arising over those issues, if marriage were to be "privatized".

66 posted on 07/16/2004 11:28:35 AM PDT by Voice in your head ("The secret of Happiness is Freedom, and the secret of Freedom, Courage." - Thucydides)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: hunter112
Parallel argument: Some kids live in homes where two divorced women who do not have sex, help each other with the kids. Why deny benefits to them? Should we remove those kids from that situation? Some kids live in state run facilities. Shall we call the group of workers who take care of them "married"?

There are always situations outside the ideal. But if we are obligated to equate everything, then you are essentially saying that marriage cannot exist under the constitution. If it exists even as it does in Massachusetts, it leaves some people -- poeple with children -- out. The point of marriage (who knew a 5,000 year old institution was going to need such vigorous defense) is to encourage the ideal. The gov't has an interest because where parents fail, gov't steps in. It is perfectly logical and just for gov't to recognize and define a family according to how nature defines a family.

67 posted on 07/16/2004 11:32:03 AM PDT by The Ghost of FReepers Past (Legislatures are so outdated. If you want real political victory, take your issue to court.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: ijcr
"Your argument that government recognition be withdrawn from marriage is straight from Marxs' lips."

Even if that were true, which it is not, your posts in this thread have been straight from your intestines. Which is worse?

"The rationale that marriage when removed from State protection will prosper fails to take into account inheritance rights,immigration issues, plus the over 1000 Federal benefits and occasionally set backs that are available for married couples."

Did you read the article or are you just commenting on the title?

68 posted on 07/16/2004 11:36:25 AM PDT by Voice in your head ("The secret of Happiness is Freedom, and the secret of Freedom, Courage." - Thucydides)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: conserv13
What's the difference between "civil union" and marriage except the word? A rose by any other name....
69 posted on 07/16/2004 11:43:42 AM PDT by asmith92008 (If we buy into the nonsense that we always have to vote for RINOs, we'll just end up taking the horn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: conserv13
Well then let's just drop all requirements for marriage. I'm sure there are quite nice polygamous folks and probably few decent incestuous relationships out there too. Who needs culture and tradition, anyway?
70 posted on 07/16/2004 11:46:03 AM PDT by asmith92008 (If we buy into the nonsense that we always have to vote for RINOs, we'll just end up taking the horn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Modernman
Well, the same could be said for America. The majority disapprove of homosexuality and homosexual marriage but our "enlightened" leaders of both parties vote so that they'll still get invitations to the right parties.
71 posted on 07/16/2004 11:48:26 AM PDT by asmith92008 (If we buy into the nonsense that we always have to vote for RINOs, we'll just end up taking the horn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

Comment #72 Removed by Moderator

To: Batrachian
When one quotes the Simpsons, he should at least have the courtesy to attribute the source. Common decncy here.
73 posted on 07/16/2004 11:50:11 AM PDT by asmith92008 (If we buy into the nonsense that we always have to vote for RINOs, we'll just end up taking the horn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Voice in your head
For several thousand years, government has done quite a job at protecting marriage. It is only in the last 40-60 years that marriage has been threatened and that threat comes from a libertarian - more accurately libertine - world view of do what you want if it feels good, no matter who it hurts. If we had the guts to stand up to those voices, no matter which party they claim, we'd be a lot better off.
74 posted on 07/16/2004 11:54:46 AM PDT by asmith92008 (If we buy into the nonsense that we always have to vote for RINOs, we'll just end up taking the horn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Catamount
In colonial America, homosexuality was a crime. Were the Founders "Hitler, Taliban, Stalin?" I believe the Founders did stand for a Constitution and could quite likely be described as conservative. Our nation once had a common sense of decency that was enforced by law and yet the more "mature" and "enlightened" residents of Europe flocked to the freedom assured by a virtuous society..
75 posted on 07/16/2004 12:04:09 PM PDT by asmith92008 (If we buy into the nonsense that we always have to vote for RINOs, we'll just end up taking the horn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

Comment #76 Removed by Moderator

To: Catamount

Go back to DU, you sorry POS liberal interloper. Your kind isn't wanted here.


77 posted on 07/16/2004 12:22:05 PM PDT by Batrachian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: asmith92008

Not necessary. I cut and pasted it from this person's FR homepage. It was meant for him, and he knows damn well where it came from.


78 posted on 07/16/2004 12:23:45 PM PDT by Batrachian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: asmith92008
"For several thousand years, government has done quite a job at protecting marriage."

How so?

79 posted on 07/16/2004 12:24:38 PM PDT by Voice in your head ("The secret of Happiness is Freedom, and the secret of Freedom, Courage." - Thucydides)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

Comment #80 Removed by Moderator

To: asmith92008
Well then let's just drop all requirements for marriage. I'm sure there are quite nice polygamous folks and probably few decent incestuous relationships out there too. Who needs culture and tradition, anyway?

The next move is the legalization of polygamy and "polyamory," which is I think is group marriage. Incest is legal, or at least decriminalized, in Sweden.

81 posted on 07/16/2004 12:47:11 PM PDT by Siamese Princess
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: asmith92008

The wording is the difference. Straight couples can have marrige, gays have civil unions. To me, this is only to keep straight couples happy, I really don't care either way.
I don't see how letting gay couples participate in marriage hurts anyone.


82 posted on 07/16/2004 12:48:07 PM PDT by conserv13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: conserv13
Look at the break down of the family structure in the Western and Scandinavian countries. Then you'll see how destroying the basic building block of society hurts anyone.
83 posted on 07/16/2004 1:05:29 PM PDT by asmith92008 (If we buy into the nonsense that we always have to vote for RINOs, we'll just end up taking the horn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Voice in your head
If folks trying to get married were not men and women, no marriage. If there were multiple partners, those with guilty knowledge go to jail. That pretty much preserves the traditional family.

Indeed, when government has tried to take a hands off approach, like with no fault divorce, it has led to a radically increased break-up in families.
84 posted on 07/16/2004 1:08:00 PM PDT by asmith92008 (If we buy into the nonsense that we always have to vote for RINOs, we'll just end up taking the horn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Catamount
So are you trying to say that post-Revolutionary America was a theocracy or a totalitarian regime?

BTW, we still do have to pay taxes to the King, legal sovereign, in the form of the sovereign states and the federal government. Is this sign of a "totalitarian" regime in today's America?
85 posted on 07/16/2004 1:10:49 PM PDT by asmith92008 (If we buy into the nonsense that we always have to vote for RINOs, we'll just end up taking the horn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: asmith92008
For government to simply turn aside as the forces of secular hedonism destroy it would be slow motion suicide for our civilization.

Government policy: Fix it til it's broken.

Ever notice that anything government touches gets screwed up? Name one thing in our society, that government touches, that isn't screwed up.

86 posted on 07/16/2004 1:22:00 PM PDT by Critter (...an online gathering place for sissy boy, girlie men, nanny staters.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: FormerLib
Government has already destroyed marriage and the family unit. Or haven't you noticed?

This is the first piece I read on the subject that actually makes sense.

87 posted on 07/16/2004 1:23:35 PM PDT by Critter (...an online gathering place for sissy boy, girlie men, nanny staters.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: asmith92008

Divorce leads to the breakdown of the family structure. Letting gays get married would add to the number of married people.

I personally know 4 gay couples, 2 men and 6 women. Two of the Lesbian couples have children. I have seen no evidence that they are not normal, healthy families. They have the same love as straight couples, and they have the same problems as stright couples do too.


88 posted on 07/16/2004 1:26:15 PM PDT by conserv13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Critter
Government has already destroyed marriage and the family unit. Or haven't you noticed?

I've noticed that Left-wing actions via government have damaged marriage, yes. But it isn't in my nature to surrender. You can do as you please, but don't expect us to follow.

89 posted on 07/16/2004 1:27:44 PM PDT by FormerLib (Kosova: "land stolen from Serbs and given to terrorist killers in a futile attempt to appease them.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Critter
Marriage was broken fairly recently, in terms of government's recognition of it. It's been recognized and honored by the government for centuries. Only in the last 40-60 years has the government stopped looking at it as a sacred union but instead a contract that can be dissolved with incredible ease.

As to something that government has touched but not screwed up, I like atomic bombs. Our government was able to marshal forces together to build a weapon to win World War Two. Landing on the moon was pretty good, too.
90 posted on 07/16/2004 1:28:21 PM PDT by asmith92008 (If we buy into the nonsense that we always have to vote for RINOs, we'll just end up taking the horn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: conserv13
So you honestly think that mothers and fathers are simply fungible and offer no special benefits to a child? As to evidence that they are not normal, healthy families, children raised in homosexual households have shown trends in more acting out sexually. I'll grant there still aren't perfectly definitive numbers but I think that's probably more a function of the fact that up until now, we haven't been stupid enough to try and replace the traditional family with an anything goes pot-luck.
91 posted on 07/16/2004 1:31:39 PM PDT by asmith92008 (If we buy into the nonsense that we always have to vote for RINOs, we'll just end up taking the horn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: FormerLib; Critter
Stripping the primary family unit of any legal protections would guarantee the end of our society as we know it. Look to the Democratic National Convention coming soon in Boston (or a "Gay Pride" parade) for a concrete look at the society that would rise in its place. -FormerLib

Government has already destroyed marriage and the family unit. Or haven't you noticed? -Critter

I've noticed that Left-wing actions via government have damaged marriage, yes. But it isn't in my nature to surrender. You can do as you please, but don't expect us to follow. -FormerLib

Many traditionalists just want out. Fatalism is weakening our side. It is much wiser to fight the good fight. The ordinary governmental protections are still necessary and still working for what they are intended to do. It is important to stop gay marriage, but please don't go rhetorically nuclear.

Who are the folks who subscribe to radical egalitarianism to force all of civil society to recognize gay marriage as equal in every way to traditional marriage? Very few of them think of it as radical. Some are mainstream conservatives and/or civil liberties fanatics.

92 posted on 07/16/2004 1:44:47 PM PDT by NutCrackerBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: asmith92008

I think that a man and a woman raising children together in a loving stable relationship is the best thing everyone involved, and the best thing for society in general.

The problem is that how often does this happen anymore? Half the time, basically.

Divorce is a major problem. I think it would be better for a child to be raised by two women in a loving relationship than by a single mom, or by a dysfunctional father and mother.


93 posted on 07/16/2004 1:45:22 PM PDT by conserv13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: conserv13
I agree that divorce is a big problem. However, the problem comes from the notion that any family unit is okay, so long as the adults are happy. It's that same attitude that tries to say that homosexual "marriage" is the functional equivalent of a mother and father.
94 posted on 07/16/2004 1:51:03 PM PDT by asmith92008 (If we buy into the nonsense that we always have to vote for RINOs, we'll just end up taking the horn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Modernman
How would allowing homosexuals to marry in any way influence heterosexual marriage?

Quite simple. If any part of marriage is up for grabs, then every part of marriage is up for grabs. In the same way as asking "why a man and a woman" then we open up "why 2 people"? "why the same species"? "why not father-daughter or mother-son"? Reproduction answers are excluded since homosexuals cannot reproduce. Any mechanism they use is available to siblings, peers and even species.

The only one of these models of co-existance that can be justified in any way besides "because I wanna" is the unrelated Male-Female union, which forms the basis for the nuclear family which forms the basis for our society.

So, if we open it up, then it cases to exist. Period.

95 posted on 07/16/2004 1:57:33 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (I want to die in my sleep like Gramps -- not yelling and screaming like those in his car)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: conserv13; asmith92008
Divorce leads to the breakdown of the family structure.

Right.

I think it would be better for a child to be raised by two women in a loving relationship than by a single mom, or by a dysfunctional father and mother.

I am not prepared to concede this, but willing to stipulate it.

Letting gays get married would add to the number of married people

Not at all clear, conserv13. Forcefully changing the culture to accept homosexual marriage will subtly but definitely cause marriage to evolve away from being an institution motivated by children and families. It is likely that over time, fewer and fewer children will have two parents (of either orientation) who are married.

Have you read Maggie Gallagher's work? It is easy to find in Weekly Standard and National Review. I think it bears studying.

96 posted on 07/16/2004 1:59:30 PM PDT by NutCrackerBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: hunter112
Maybe you're unaware of the fact that gay couples can adopt nearly everywhere in the US, and that lesbians can always find a sympathetic friend and a turkey baster. Quite a few have kids from a previous straight relationship. I hope that all of them are trying to raise their kids as good citizens. In any case, are you going to make the kids in these relationships suffer because of the circumstances of their parents? And no, you're not going to be able to take all of these kids out of those homes and put them with Ozzie-and-Harriett families, there just aren't enough of them out there waiting to adopt non-infants.

Your trying to add too much to the scope of my post. What I said was:

"Then again, neither can possibly produce kids, and would not be considered a married couple and family - Which is why marriage exists, and why the state has a vested interest in preserving and nurturing the next generation of good citizens."

The key word here is produce. When you adopt, yout take custody of the result of sexual contact between a male sperm and female egg. In a homosexual relationship, you must go outside the relationship to come up with both of these items.

97 posted on 07/16/2004 2:01:04 PM PDT by RobRoy (You only "know" what you experience. Everything else is mere belief.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Batrachian

"They don't have the guts to say that homosexuality is a filthy and evil perversion and not only shouldn't be approved by the government, but should be vigorously stamped out. "


Substitute "homosexuality" with "Judaism" above and you have almost paraphrased Hitler's Final Solution.


98 posted on 07/16/2004 2:03:23 PM PDT by Blzbba (Hillary Clinton - Dawn of a New Error.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Batrachian

"The institution of marriage is terminally ill and not long for this world."


I agree with you. Many heteros screaming about how harmful to hetero marriage the idea of homo marriage is conveniently forget that -- without homo marriage -- heteros have managed to make give marriage a 50%+ divorce rate.

Not to mention the millions of Britney Spears / Vegas-type debacles that have left millions of children behind in their wakes of devastation. But that's OK because it's hetero?


99 posted on 07/16/2004 2:07:42 PM PDT by Blzbba (Hillary Clinton - Dawn of a New Error.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Blzbba
I oppose a behavior, not a people. I guess we can't enforce any morality otherwise we're Nazis. Someone else accused me of being Stalin and the Taliban. I didn't realize I was such a terrible person. Oh, wait a minute, I'm a conservative. Never mind.
100 posted on 07/16/2004 2:17:13 PM PDT by Batrachian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-191 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