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

Skip to comments.

SCOTUS strikes down Texas sodomy ban
FOXnews

Posted on 06/26/2003 7:08:23 AM PDT by Thane_Banquo

SCOTUS sided with the perverts.


TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 0amanreapswhathesews; 0bedroomkgb; 0godwillnotbemocked; 1aslimmeyslope; 1scrotus; 1slimmeyslope; 3branchesofgovt; activistcourt; activistsupremecourt; ageofconsentlaws; aides; aidesincreasetaxesup; aidesintheusa; aidesupinsuranceup; aidsalert; antibiblecountry; antichristiantrolls; antirelgiontrolls; antireligion; antireligionbigots; antireligiontroll; aregayapparel; arroganceofscotus; ascrotus; assthumpingidiots; biblethumpingmorons; biggovernmentcorrupt; bluenose; blueoyster; bohica; bowtothesecularstate; bowtothewelfarestate; bugger; buggered; buggerer; buggery; busybodieslose; buttpirate; buyvaselinestock; catsdogsmice; celebratesin; chickenlollipoppers; christianbashing; civilrights; clintonlegacy; constitutiontrashed; crazyfundies; culturewar; davidsouterisafaggot; deathoftheusa; deathofthewest; degeneracy; depravity; destructionofusa; devianceuptaxesup; deviantsex; donwenow; downourthroats; downwenoware; druglaws; endofcivilization; evilinactivistcourts; evilinrighttoprivacy; falalafalalalalala; falalalalalalalala; farkinqueers; fecalcontact; fools; fudgepackersdelight; fundiesinthecloset; fundyhysteria; gay; gayagenda; gayarrogance; gaybashing; gaycheese; gaycivlrights; gaydar; gaygestapo; gaykeywords; gaymafia; gaymarriage; gaymoose; gaynarcissist; gaypride; gayrights; gaysarevictimtoo; gayscelebrate; gaysholdusacaptive; gaysoutofcloset; gaysremakeamerica; gayssuppressthetruth; gaystapo; gaytrolldolls; gaytyrants; gayvote; getoutofmyroom; goawaymrsgrundy; godless; godsjudgement; godswrath; governmentschoolsex; hatecrimelegislation; himom; hitlerywins; homeschoolnow; homoapologists; homophobes; homosexual; homosexualagenda; homosexualagendawins; homosexualvote; hyperventilating; ihavearighttosin; ihaverights; incestlaws; indoctrination; itsjustsex; itsunatural; jeebuslovesgays; keywordwarsaregay; kitcheneducation; kneepadbrigade; lawrencevtexas; legislatinghate; legislatingsin; legislaturemakeslaws; lewinksys4all; lewinsky; lewinskys; liars; liberalagenda; libertariansareevil; libertines; lotsdaughters; lpcausesbo; makejeebuscry; manboylove; manboyloveassoc; manholeinspectorjoy; menwithmen; moralrelativism; moralrelativistinusa; msgrundypatrol; mycousinknowsclay; nambla; namblawillwinnext; onepercentrulesusa; oralsex; ourgayapparel; paulwellstone; pcdecision; pederasty; peepingtomgovt; perversion; perverts; preverts; prisoners; privacyprotection; prostitutionlaws; publichealthhazard; puritanslose; readtheconstitution; relgionbashing; religionbashing; romans1godswrath; rosieishappytoday; rosietypes; rumprangers; samesexdisorder; samesexmarriage; samesexmarriages; scotusknowsbest; scotusmakeslaw; scotustrumpsgodslaw; scotustrumpstate; scotustyranny; scrotus; sexeducation; sexindoctrination; sexpolice; sin; singlorified; slimmeyslope; slipperyslop; slipperyslope; slouching; slurpslurp; snitchonyourneighbor; sodomandgomorrah; sodomites; sodommites; sodomy; sodomylaw; sodomylaws; spyinthebushes; statesrights; stronginthesouth; supremecourt; swalloworspit; talibanintheusa; talibannedtrolls; texassodomylaw; thefunpolice; thegayelite; thegayvote; thisisevil; tisseasontobeunhappy; tistheseason; tobejolly; usathirdworldcountry; vicesnowvirtues; victimlesscrime; victimsofaids; victimsofhepatitus; weakinthehead; whatstatesright; womenwithwomen; zscrotus; zslimmeyslope; zzgoodruling
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 601-650651-700701-750 ... 1,701-1,734 next last
To: tomahawk
Have you visited public restrooms recently? Have you visited public parks? I've seen them doing it there.

Then criminalize public sexuality.

And quit pretending that criminalizing private homosexuality constitutes the same thing.

651 posted on 06/26/2003 10:24:17 AM PDT by OWK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 640 | View Replies]

To: Trace21230
The main reason incest is criminalized is because children from incestuous unions are more likely to be deformed, mentally retarded, and generally undesirable.

So using this logic, I guess a father can screw his 16 year old son, then? If not, on what grounds would you oppose such acts?
652 posted on 06/26/2003 10:24:17 AM PDT by Antoninus (In hoc signo, vinces )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 619 | View Replies]

To: Trace21230
The main reason incest is criminalized is because children from incestuous unions are more likely to be deformed, mentally retarded, and generally undesirable.

So using this logic, I guess a father can screw his 16 year old son, then? If not, on what grounds would you oppose such acts?
653 posted on 06/26/2003 10:24:17 AM PDT by Antoninus (In hoc signo, vinces )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 619 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
So, If I put my 17 year old daughter on the pill we can then have sex.

No, for several obvious reasons.

1. The pill is not a failsafe birth control measure.

2. The emotional damage inflicted on a child makes the child of the parent incapable of consent, even if they are otherwise competent.

3. The family is a traditional American institution where the boundaries of authority (i.e. father/daughter, mother/son) must be respected in order to stregthen and preserve the family unit. Sex with relatives destroys that.

There is a better case for de-criminalizing "incest" with first cousins, but I'm not prepared to go there yet.

Trace

654 posted on 06/26/2003 10:24:18 AM PDT by Trace21230 (Ideal MOAB test site: Paris)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 623 | View Replies]

To: tomahawk
Have you visited public restrooms recently? Have you visited public parks? I've seen them doing it there.

Then criminalize public sexuality.

And quit pretending that criminalizing private homosexuality constitutes the same thing.

655 posted on 06/26/2003 10:24:19 AM PDT by OWK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 640 | View Replies]

To: Thane_Banquo
This decision should cut both ways. What people do in the privacy of their bedroom shouldn't entitle them to preferential treatment.
656 posted on 06/26/2003 10:24:19 AM PDT by NEWwoman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MissAmericanPie
"OK, so Texas fix the anal intercourse ban so it applies to all genders. Problem solved."

And I live right next door to two who are as discreet as anybody can be. Not only do they shut their blinds, but when friends came over and started to hold hands in the back yard, they stopped them because they didn't think it would be appropriate for our kids to see. It's the hetero couple four doors down that we have a problem with exhibiting themselves.

You never know.
657 posted on 06/26/2003 10:24:20 AM PDT by kegler4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy
I'm not aware of any cultures outside dog cultures that endorse parent/child incest.

Ain't that the truth. Does the AKC recognize them when they're bred that close?

658 posted on 06/26/2003 10:24:21 AM PDT by Chancellor Palpatine (Winning flame wars on the net is like winning a medal at the Special Olympics)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 649 | View Replies]

To: MissAmericanPie
"OK, so Texas fix the anal intercourse ban so it applies to all genders. Problem solved."

And I live right next door to two who are as discreet as anybody can be. Not only do they shut their blinds, but when friends came over and started to hold hands in the back yard, they stopped them because they didn't think it would be appropriate for our kids to see. It's the hetero couple four doors down that we have a problem with exhibiting themselves.

You never know.
659 posted on 06/26/2003 10:24:21 AM PDT by kegler4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: rintense
Homos have FIVES TIMES more partners. They also are three times more likely to have sex with animals than heteros.

660 posted on 06/26/2003 10:24:21 AM PDT by fooman (Get real with Kim Jung Mentally Ill about proliferation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 335 | View Replies]

To: rintense
Homos have FIVES TIMES more partners. They also are three times more likely to have sex with animals than heteros.

661 posted on 06/26/2003 10:24:21 AM PDT by fooman (Get real with Kim Jung Mentally Ill about proliferation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 335 | View Replies]

To: rintense
Homos have FIVES TIMES more partners. They also are three times more likely to have sex with animals than heteros.

662 posted on 06/26/2003 10:24:27 AM PDT by fooman (Get real with Kim Jung Mentally Ill about proliferation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 335 | View Replies]

To: rintense
Homos have FIVES TIMES more partners. They also are three times more likely to have sex with animals than heteros.

663 posted on 06/26/2003 10:24:32 AM PDT by fooman (Get real with Kim Jung Mentally Ill about proliferation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 335 | View Replies]

To: The Red Zone
Such a discussion needs to distinguish contingent political rights from absolute moral rights. Many acts which a political system ought to permit, are still morally wrong. I have no absolute moral right to lie about anything, even something so trivial as what I had for lunch. But I can, and should, have a political right to do so.

Interesting point. I wonder why the Founding Fathers did not make the distinction. Probably because they thought the two were too intertwined and inseperable. They could not have foreseen an American as secular as ours is today. If the issue of "What is a Right?" ever becomes a major public debate, that would be an important discussion

664 posted on 06/26/2003 10:24:46 AM PDT by Teacher317
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 597 | View Replies]

To: LanPB01
Smithers - I think women and sea-men don't mix.
Mr. Burns - We know what you think!
665 posted on 06/26/2003 10:25:01 AM PDT by Grando Calrissian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: OWK
I can go through some silly hocus pocus and say I'm married to my cat. But that doesn't give a reason to the state to recognize the relationship. States recognize marriages for the same reason that they recognize people: Because they are a fundamental fact of life. THE WAY GOD MADE IT. Marriages reflect the arrangement GOD has bequeathed to us to create children: a man and a woman. Comprendez-pas?
666 posted on 06/26/2003 10:25:22 AM PDT by The Red Zone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 644 | View Replies]

To: BlazingArizona
"... it's a huge victory for conservatives. It limits government intrusion into our private lives."

It's a victory for all Americans for the reason you outlined, except those Americans that are predisposed to snoop and snitch on their neighbors.

The busybody neighbor of these two gay guys who brought the suit to the SCOTUS just got told that they're an anti-American jackass.

667 posted on 06/26/2003 10:25:40 AM PDT by The KG9 Kid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 639 | View Replies]

Comment #668 Removed by Moderator

To: puroresu
Re post #537:

BRAVO!! Best post of the thread.
669 posted on 06/26/2003 10:25:56 AM PDT by EagleMamaMT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 537 | View Replies]

To: kegler4
"OK, so Texas fix the anal intercourse ban so it applies to all genders. Problem solved."

Sorry, cut and pasted the wrong blurb on that last post.
670 posted on 06/26/2003 10:26:11 AM PDT by kegler4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 659 | View Replies]

To: rintense
Homos have FIVES TIMES more partners. They also are three times more likely to have sex with animals than heteros.

671 posted on 06/26/2003 10:26:34 AM PDT by fooman (Get real with Kim Jung Mentally Ill about proliferation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 335 | View Replies]

To: Trace21230
The main reason incest is criminalized is because children from incestuous unions are more likely to be deformed, mentally retarded, and generally undesirable.

So using this logic, I guess a father can screw his 16 year old son, then? If not, on what grounds would you oppose such acts?
672 posted on 06/26/2003 10:26:36 AM PDT by Antoninus (In hoc signo, vinces )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 619 | View Replies]

To: fooman
... And are four times more likely to repeat themselves.
673 posted on 06/26/2003 10:26:45 AM PDT by The KG9 Kid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 663 | View Replies]

To: Chancellor Palpatine
You're a little sick to be personalizing it that way.

Why are you upset ? Its currently our constitutional right to privacy isn't it ? The state cannot invade our privacy. If we desire oral sex/anal sex or good old fashioned missionary sex, whats the beef ? Why would be illegal for my daughter and I to have sex ? She is a consenting 16 year old and if she was on the pill whats the issue ? Even if she got pregnant she doesn't have to give birth. She can abort.

674 posted on 06/26/2003 10:26:45 AM PDT by VRWC_minion (Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and most are right)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 648 | View Replies]

To: HumanaeVitae
" The fictiticious "Privacy Amendment" is a tad annoying, however."

I posted on that here and elsewhere. The right doesn't preclude govm't from anything, other than infringing on that right in a more liberal fashion than given in the rest of the 4th.

675 posted on 06/26/2003 10:26:54 AM PDT by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 622 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus
I vote 1913. If a person does not have the right to the fruits of his own labor, and those proceeds can be used against him (eminent domain, etc), then he is not a free citizen.
676 posted on 06/26/2003 10:26:55 AM PDT by Teacher317
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 608 | View Replies]

To: The Red Zone
I can go through some silly hocus pocus and say I'm married to my cat.

And yet you can't even manage to define the word "rights".

Go figure.

677 posted on 06/26/2003 10:26:57 AM PDT by OWK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 666 | View Replies]

To: Teacher317
If a person does not have the right to the fruits of his own labor, and those proceeds can be used against him (eminent domain, etc), then he is not a free citizen.

Amen.

678 posted on 06/26/2003 10:27:41 AM PDT by OWK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 676 | View Replies]

To: IowaHawk
And then there was no one left to speak up for the window-peeping blue nosed religious extremists...

slippery slope indeed - to think that laws against blue nosed religious extremists might one day be repealed!

679 posted on 06/26/2003 10:27:50 AM PDT by jethropalerobber
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 518 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
Ms. Grundy is crying in her beer.

Now she will finally have time to go take those kite flying lessons.

680 posted on 06/26/2003 10:27:59 AM PDT by FreeLibertarian (You live and learn. Or you don't live long.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: The KG9 Kid
LOL!
681 posted on 06/26/2003 10:27:59 AM PDT by dead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 673 | View Replies]

To: Grando Calrissian
Don't forget the ever important Chapter 2, where it explains the aspect of the conspiracy that involves converting all fundamentalist Christian children to homosexuality...
682 posted on 06/26/2003 10:28:16 AM PDT by huck von finn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 629 | View Replies]

To: BlazingArizona
Yessirree - everyone is going to drop what they're doing and run right out to have sex with dogs!

Say what?!?


683 posted on 06/26/2003 10:29:01 AM PDT by Teacher317
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 613 | View Replies]

To: B Knotts
Interestingly, he says the majority did not rely on Griswold's privacy right; he says they decided that no legitimate state interest was shown.

kennedy's opinion also decided that no legitimate state interest was shown in this case (if you read it).

684 posted on 06/26/2003 10:29:43 AM PDT by jethropalerobber
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 520 | View Replies]

To: Trace21230
. The pill is not a failsafe birth control measure.

We have abortion or the morning after pill as a back up. Plus, we can refrain from intercoure

2. The emotional damage inflicted on a child makes the child of the parent incapable of consent, even if they are otherwise competent.

She is either capable of deciding or she is not. If the state says she is capable and she does it in her private home who is the state to intrude ?

3. The family is a traditional American institution where the boundaries of authority (i.e. father/daughter, mother/son) must be respected in order to stregthen and preserve the family unit. Sex with relatives destroys that.

The family is an outdated religious constraint. Don't go imposing your religious views on me and my daughter.

685 posted on 06/26/2003 10:30:31 AM PDT by VRWC_minion (Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and most are right)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 654 | View Replies]

To: OWK
And yet you can't even manage to define the word "rights". Go figure.

Hitt'n the fives ain't we.

686 posted on 06/26/2003 10:31:03 AM PDT by The Red Zone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 677 | View Replies]

To: CholeraJoe
As well as unconstitutional laws denying women and blacks the right to vote and perpetuating slavery.

Uh, if I remember correctly, amendments to the constitution had to be passed to address those issues. Not so in the case of anal sex, abortion, affirmative action, etc. We have a Supreme Court ruling us by fiat.

If the Gaystapo wanted to take the truly constitutional route to legitimizing homo-sex, they would have tried to pass an amendment. Instead, they chose to go the route that all totalitarian types do -- just impose your will by fiat, the people be d@mned.

You people better try to silence us quickly.....This decision may just wake up the sleeping giant. Bring on the MARRIAGE AMENDMENT!
687 posted on 06/26/2003 10:31:13 AM PDT by Antoninus (In hoc signo, vinces )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 636 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat
Actually, the court is pretty balanced right now. Scalia and Thomas are far right, Ginsberg and Breyer are pretty left. The others sort of fall into the middle. Unless you want a court that is tilted to the right. I prefer a balance to keep the lunatic fringes from either side from asserting its will.
688 posted on 06/26/2003 10:31:17 AM PDT by GSWarrior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 602 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
The main reason incest is criminalized is because children from incestuous unions are more likely to be deformed, mentally retarded, and generally undesirable.

Trace's continuing effort to extirpate morality from the law is becoming increasingly laughable.

689 posted on 06/26/2003 10:31:18 AM PDT by HumanaeVitae (Catholic Epimethean)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 623 | View Replies]

To: The Red Zone
Mumbling about fives, doesn't make you look any less cowardly.

Why won't you answer a simple question?

690 posted on 06/26/2003 10:32:05 AM PDT by OWK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 686 | View Replies]

To: Amelia
My position lines up exactly (as is usually the case) with Justice Thomas' dissent:

   JUSTICE THOMAS, dissenting.

   I join JUSTICE SCALIA's dissenting opinion. I write separately to note that the law before the Court today "is . . . uncommonly silly." Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479, 527 (1965) (Stewart, J., dissenting). If I were a member of the Texas Legislature, I would vote to repeal it. Punishing someone for expressing his sexual preference through noncommercial consensual conduct with another adult does not appear to be a worthy way to expend valuable law enforcement resources.
   Notwithstanding this, I recognize that as a member of this Court I am not empowered to help petitioners and others similarly situated. My duty, rather, is to "decide cases 'agreeably to the Constitution and laws of the United States.'" Id., at 530. And, just like Justice Stewart, I "can find [neither in the Bill of Rights nor any other part of the Constitution a] general right of privacy," ibid., or as the Court terms it today, the "liberty of the person both in its spatial and more transcendent dimensions,: ante, at 1.


691 posted on 06/26/2003 10:32:05 AM PDT by B Knotts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 272 | View Replies]

To: B Knotts
Interestingly, [Scalia] says the majority did not rely on Griswold's privacy right; he says they decided that no legitimate state interest was shown.

from the last page of kennedy's opinion:

"The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual."

692 posted on 06/26/2003 10:32:34 AM PDT by jethropalerobber
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 520 | View Replies]

To: HumanaeVitae
I don't know about your history, but none of the 10 Amendments is particularly offensive. The fictiticious "Privacy Amendment" is a tad annoying, however.
-hv-



The 14th is not fictitous.
It may yet be the amendment that saves our RKBA's from the 'overregulators' among us.
Reasonable "due process" must be used in drafting restrictive laws..

But, -- do you even care about individual rights, HV?
693 posted on 06/26/2003 10:32:42 AM PDT by tpaine (Really, I'm trying to be a 'decent human being', but me flesh is weak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 622 | View Replies]

To: OWK
Bingo, top level again.
694 posted on 06/26/2003 10:32:50 AM PDT by The Red Zone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 690 | View Replies]

To: tdadams
Totally off topic, but you should see the movie "Best in Show". Freakin' hilarious.

No, it isn't totally off-topic. Remember the guys with those fru-fru terriers or pekinese or whatever they were? I've watched it at least ten times--even though there are EVIL GAYS in it. Come to think of it...those guys should have been ARRESTED!

695 posted on 06/26/2003 10:32:57 AM PDT by huck von finn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 611 | View Replies]

To: The Red Zone; OWK
He has addressed it, in a roundabout way. See #597, among others. I think he's just pulling your chain by not answering directly, OWK.
696 posted on 06/26/2003 10:33:22 AM PDT by Teacher317
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 686 | View Replies]

To: HumanaeVitae
forbidding only homosexual sodomy

There is no problem with this since homosexuality is a behavior and not a trait -- regardless of whether people ARE homosexuals or BECOME homosexuals. EVERYONE is equal under this law, since EVERYONE can engage in sodomy with a person of the opposite sex, but not a person of the same sex. If the law affects someone different, that isn't a per se equal protection violation.

697 posted on 06/26/2003 10:33:36 AM PDT by 1L
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: The Red Zone
I think some members of this SCOTUS would find the amendment to be unconstitutional.

I'm not surprised that you know that little about how our system works. An amendment becomes part of the Constitution. The only way to overturn it is to pass another amendment, eg. prohibition.
698 posted on 06/26/2003 10:33:47 AM PDT by Antoninus (In hoc signo, vinces )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 645 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
So, If I put my 17 year old daughter on the pill we can then have sex.

No, for several obvious reasons.

1. The pill is not a failsafe birth control measure.

2. The emotional damage inflicted on a child makes the child of the parent incapable of consent with the parent, even if they are otherwise competent to consent to sex with other adults.

3. The family is a traditional American institution where the boundaries of authority (i.e. father/daughter, mother/son) must be respected in order to stregthen and preserve the family unit. Sex with relatives destroys that.

There is a better case for de-criminalizing "incest" with first cousins, but I'm not prepared to go there yet.

Trace

699 posted on 06/26/2003 10:33:56 AM PDT by Trace21230 (Ideal MOAB test site: Paris)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 623 | View Replies]

To: dubyaismypresident
Should the SCOTUS void a states anti-nose picking law, hypothetically? Or do states have the right to pass silly laws?

Yes. The only legit function of government is protection of individual Rights. While my neighbors nostril farming my be disgusting to me, it in no way infringes on my Rights. Especially when the law specificly states that it is OK for brown haired people to pick their noses, but not redheads.

700 posted on 06/26/2003 10:34:01 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 587 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 601-650651-700701-750 ... 1,701-1,734 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