Post Election Update:
With 95% of the votes counted, Proposition 8 has passed with 52% of Californians voting to amend the state constitution to eliminate the rights of same-sex couples to marry. What do you think? What does this outcome say about California? How did you vote and why? With the electorate split nearly 50-50 on an issue that is so personal for so many on both sides, what happens now?
All eyes are on Prop 8 this year as Californians decide whether or not to amend the state constitution to prohibit same sex couples from marrying. Is this an issue of civil rights or religious freedom? What about the separation of church and state? With only a slim majority required to pass the measure, is California's constitution headed to the drafting table?
California already has strong domestic partnerships, but many proponents of Prop 8 invoke the civil rights movement and call domestic partnerships a discriminating example of "separate but equal." Many opponents of the proposition say marriage is not a civil issue, but a question of religious beliefs.
But what business does government have in sacramental language in the first place? Should government leave the marriage business entirely, and hand out only civil unions, allowing other institutions to use the term "marriage," thereby keeping religious beliefs and civil rights separate?
How do you think Californians on both sides will move forward once this issue is decided?
It is a perversion of public policy to decide such questions by referendum.
Morality can be neither legislated by an institution ( The Congress ) or by a helter-skelter sampling of voters in a hastily conceived campaign at one instant in time, (referenda).
This approach mocks the rule of law.
If the definition of what is or isn't moral, proper, valid, legal;- as in what constitutes a marriage, can be determined by the fleeting whims of the electorate, then let's eliminate the legislative and judicial branches of government.
Other Items that Might be resolved by Referendum:
1. Outlawing/Mandating Abortion
2. Outlawing/Mandating the death penalty
3. Outlawing/Mandating the second amendment to the Constitution.
4. Legalizing/Criminalizing drugs of your choice.
5. Outlawing alcohol/Lowering the drinking age to 16.
6. Making gum-chewing illegal.
DES MOINES, Iowa - The Iowa Supreme Court legalized gay marriage in a unanimous and emphatic decision that makes Iowa the third state — and first in the nation's heartland — to allow same-sex couples to wed.
Iowa joins only Massachusetts and Connecticut in permitting same-sex marriage. For six months last year, California's high court allowed gay marriage before voters banned it in November.
The Iowa justices upheld a lower-court ruling that rejected a state law restricting marriage to a union between a man and woman.
Rome wasn't built in a day. At least there's progress being made on this front. It's silly that the government is even restricting this stuff in the first place. Hopefully America and the rest of the world will open their eyes and see that the government has no business regulating marriage.
---
Best Free MMORPG RPG Game Music Game Wallpapers
(This comment came into The California Report email box from a listener on Friday 10/31, just before our discussion boards were activated. - Gretchen Weber, KQED)
It is one sad but true characteristic of human beings: in times of distress, we tend to look for some group to victimize, scapegoat, or blame. Of course, the most dramatic example was Nazi Germany in the 1930’s, as ordinary people agreed with the government’s victimization of Jews, Gypsies, and homosexuals.
But in the United States, we have had our own share of examples of persecution of minority groups. We chose to imprison Japanese Americans during WWII, and many people today blame undocumented Latino immigrants for problems in their community.
Prior to the recent stock market crash, I was confident that the latest discriminatory proposition on the California ballot would be defeated. But in the past month, it has been clear that proponents of Proposition 8, the measure to ban gay marriage, are gaining ground.
Some people in support of this proposition use religion to justify their beliefs. This reminds me of the use of “anti-miscegenation” passages in the Bible to justify a ban on inter-racial marriages. I remember hearing this from Baptist relatives when I was a child. Although I couldn’t argue scripture with them, even as a little kid it seemed wrong to me not to allow people who loved each other to get married.
If, like me, you are not homosexual, perhaps you think issue this doesn’t really concern you, one way or another. I don’t agree. Personally, I do not want to live in a society that legislates discrimination against any group. It is when good people do not take a stand that evil can thrive.
Would you support a law that made it illegal for a White to marry someone outside their race? Not long ago, many people did. In fact, up until 1948, it was illegal in the state of California for Whites to marry Blacks or Asians*. According to state statute, keeping races separate was thought to be “following the order of Divine Providence” and that racial commingling was sinful, “to the dishonor of God and shame of Christians"**.
Today, we face the same challenge. Do we allow discrimination to be written into California’s Constitution? Or, do we take a stand and protect the civil rights of others?
Regardless of your personal beliefs, vote no on Prop 8 so you can tell your children and your grandchildren that discrimination, in any form, is wrong.
I am completely and utterly ashamed of my fellow citizens that this is even on the ballot. What business is it of ours if gay people marry? Who exactly does it hurt? Who exactly does it infringe upon? If two people love each other, then let them be a family -- with all the same rights and responsibilities of male-female couples. I just can't comprehend why we would want to take this away. If you don't think it's right, if you think it's a sin, if it's just not for you, that's FINE. Just don't do it! It's that simple.
For me, I feel the same way about abortion. It's a personal choice. It's not a choice that we should be making for other people.
My grandmother was partners with the same woman for 35 years before she passed away. That's a lot longer than a lot of straight marriages. I know that my grandmother and her partner would have loved more than anything to get married and be a legal family. Though she had been with her partner for so many years, her "wife" did not receive pension or death benefits simply because she did not have the correct genitalia and they could not be legally married. How is this right?
I voted NO on Prop 8 and I will be sad and disgusted if this passes.
if prop 8 passes, as i fear it may, it will be a sad day for us as a state. i propose that the next proposition on the ballot be designed to mandate the annulment of all marriages that fail to produce offspring within 2 years. if the issue is going to be pushed, let's push it all the way. let folks reap what they sow.
I see this prop is probably gonna be defeated. all i can say is the GALL of people to think lives should be judged by the biased public at large. there is SO MUCH WRONG WITH THIS.@@
Bless all the gay married and keep on fighting. as for the rest, karma , one day. this is an EVIL proposition.
I am so disappointed in California. Nobody is asking religious people to say that gay marriage is recognized or valid in the eyes of God; this is about civil rights and the law. There is separation of church and state in this country, remember? Banning same-sex marriage is another version of "separate but equal" - minus the "equal" part - and it is wrong. It hurts gay couples and their children, who are NOT treated the same under the law (taxes, hospital rights when a partner is ill, etc...).
Shame on California for “protecting” marriage by not recognizing the commitment of loving couples. Shame on those who claim that love between two people is not "natural" – once it wasn't "natural" for a blacks and whites to marry, which is of course racist and ridiculous. Shame on anyone who thinks that this proposition meant changing the way we teach our kids in school; all it would have taught is tolerance.
How will we move forward? For a while we will have to live with the fact that we as a society are responsible for stripping civil rights from our brothers and sisters. In time this issue will be seen for what it is: discrimination, pure and simple.
Why does the news media insist on calling this a "Ban on Gay Marriage". It was never intended to be a "ban". Pete Wilson, not us, defined it that way to bias the voters. Prop 8 is about restoring traditional marriage as we have always known it. What actually happened when the California Supreme Court overturned Prop 22 is that marriages could no longer be between a husband and wife. It now was Party A and Party B. Our marriage institution had been destroyed. We could no longer be married as husband and wife, but only as Party A and Party B. I think the voters saw through Pete Wilson's trickery.
We, the YES voters of Prop A, have no grudges against gays and lesbians, except that they kept stealing our signs and accosting us, taking away OUR freedom of speech. If any rights are being trumped, it is ours, not theirs. We believe they should have all the same governmental rights as traditional marriage partners. However it is not "marriage". Marriage is between a man and a woman. Gays and lesbians should be provided government ceremonies that guaruntee equal rights, but it cannot be called "marriage". It is simply a civil union, call it whatever else you like.
Please stop refering to prop 8 as a "ban on gay marriage". It is, in fact, simply "restoration of traditional marriage".
What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;
-- From Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, 1594
In my opinion, the name attached to a loving union is not all-important. Quibbling over who gets to use the word "marriage" to describe their unions is petty at best.
If you love the person you marry, does it really matter how that union is described in a sterile legal document?
It shouldn't. If it does--if a legal definition is more powerful than your own love and faith--then you probably need to do some serious soul-searching.
And so I think it's pretty clear that the people who want to enforce a narrow definition of marriage are, in fact, working to denigrate gay unions, if not ban them outright.
That we would use our *constitution* to /deny/ rights to one group that we grant to another is shameful.
What benefit have you derived from Prop. 8's passage? All this initiative has done is divide our state, codify discrimination, and hurt our economy. Was your marriage sufficiently threatened by gay peoples marriages that these costs are warranted? I am not gay, but today I'm ashamed to be a Californian. Call it whatever you want, but it's no more than a manifestation of hate, and it does not comport with the golden rule. Your religion or life philosophy has been diverted from the commonly held basic truths. Rather than fret about "Party A" and "Party B," why not fret about the plight of your fellow citizens, whom you have helped render 2nd class.
Why does the news media insist on calling this a "Ban on Gay Marriage". It was never intended to be a "ban". Pete Wilson, not us, defined it that way to bias the voters. Prop 8 is about restoring traditional marriage as we have always known it. What actually happened when the California Supreme Court overturned Prop 22 is that marriages could no longer be between a husband and wife. It now was Party A and Party B. Our marriage institution had been destroyed. We could no longer be married as husband and wife, but only as Party A and Party B. I think the voters saw through Pete Wilson's trickery.
We, the YES voters of Prop A, have no grudges against gays and lesbians, except that they kept stealing our signs and accosting us, taking away OUR freedom of speech. If any rights are being trumped, it is ours, not theirs. We believe they should have all the same governmental rights as traditional marriage partners. However it is not "marriage". Marriage is between a man and a woman. Gays and lesbians should be provided government ceremonies that guaruntee equal rights, but it cannot be called "marriage". It is simply a civil union, call it whatever else you like.
Please stop refering to prop 8 as a "ban on gay marriage". It is, in fact, simply "restoration of traditional marriage".
Why can a loving partnership of two people, be it between two people of the same sex, not be called a marriage? Simply because it has not been called a marriage in the past? Times and traditions change.
For example, (and please do not take any offense to this example because I mean none) the Jim Crow Laws that were enacted and enforced between 1876 and 1965, were widely accepted and seen as just and right by a majority of people. Today we shame the people who thought this fair and right. The Jim Crow Laws were laws that singled out and discriminated against a certain party of people. Proposition 8 also seeks to single out a specific group of people and discriminate against another. By changing the Californian constitution to say that marriage can only be between a man and a woman, we exclude all those people who would wish their /own/ marriage to be between a woman and a woman or a man and a man.
The reason we elect government officials is to protect minority rights. Same-sex couples are minorities, and if the government allows the majority to pass a discriminatory law against the minorities of California, then they are not doing their jobs. They should not allow this kind of manifestation of hate towards one group of people. Say whatever you would like to say, it is a ban on same-sex marriage, not a restoration of a traditional marriage.
Good point you have made marriage is made in heaven , that should be in proper manner.
acai berry acai berry oprah wonderful life and everything should be between male and female
Perhaps if you knew the definition of the traditional marriage you would not be calling it a restoration of the traditional marriage.
A traditional marriage is as follows : "A heterosexual couple who at some point in their lives raise children."
Now, if proposition 8 were truly restoring traditional marriage then it would need to specify that a man and a woman have to plan on eventually having children in order to become married.
Because proposition 8 is not suggesting that marriage can only be between a man and woman who will at some point raise children, it is NOT restoring the traditional marriage.
It is a ban on same-sex marriage, and a discriminatory proposition.
In addition to a traditional marriage being a heterosexual couple who at some point in their lives raise children, a traditional marriage also gives high values on becoming and staying married, viewing divorce as taboo. It also supports putting the needs of the children above the mothers career, and not the fathers. Proposition 8 addresses none of these issues that are involved in a traditional marriage, therefore proposition 8 does not restore the traditional marriage it simply says that marriage should be between a man and a woman. Which is really just an example of bigotry in political action.
My question is this. If a same sex couple was legally married in California before prop 8 passed, are they still legally married?
For example, if the constitution was amended so that different sex couples could not legally marry, then would all the different sex already married couples no longer be legally married?
I would like to respond to Mr. Hatch's idea of "restoring traditional marriage."
Let's think about this for a moment - what IS a "traditional marriage" in the context of present society (or even in the past)? A man and a woman "married" but each having acknowledged extra marital affairs considered "traditional marriage?" How about a man and a woman "married" on paper but for the sole purpose of getting around certain tax/financial/asset related regulations? How about an arranged or forced marriage between a man and a woman? What if that marriage is abusive and one was physically threatened into it? Are any of these sound like "traditional marriage" to you? They don't to me, but if you are defining "traditional marriage" on the basis of gender like you are doing (which I don't), these are all considered "traditional marriage." So if Prop 8 is truly about "restoring traditional marriage" NOT related to homophobia or bigotry against those who are in same-gender relationships, why didn't it address OTHER pertinent issues around this idea of "traditional marriage?"
Besides, if Prop 8 supporters are honestly not being hateful against people in same-sex relationships - or rather, who are sexually diverse different from the social norm - do you think they would be happy with a transgender man and transgender woman getting married? I highly doubt it.
In my opinion, defining "marriage," especially "traditional marriage" by gender is fundamentally faulty. It is merely an excuse to hide the underlying homophobia/transphobia and hatred towards those who are different.
No one CHOOSES to be born autistic, Asian, or overwight, black, white, woman, man, or hearing impaired, or any of these things. No one CHOOSES (at least to the most part) to become an alcoholic, homeless, or abused either. Sexual and gender identities/experiences are just the same. So why OUR civil rights challenged on the basis of something so natural as the colors of our skins?
Yes, I hated the fact that some "No Prop 8" activists vandalized and took more violent means to get their point across. But why should the rest of us who are good, honest, respectful, conscious, peaceful be repremanded - stripped off of civil rigths - for their wrong doings? Why then, shouldn't straight people's civil rights be stripped off for the death of Matthew Shepard or Brandon Teena and thousands of others who were KILLED based on hate crime? "Eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" right? So please, spare me the beacause-you-did-this-you-deserve-it argument.
I had a dream, and now it is shattered. But I will continue to live a positive, honest, and peaceful life, and I will do what I can to change the ways of the world.
Then why can't marriage include brother and sister, parent and child, etc. You mention unfaithful "traditional marriage" partners. The marriage license and ceremony does not support them in being unfaithful.
As I stated, I see no problem with providing a "civil ceremony" and civil license for non-gender specific unions (e.g. party A and party B). These unions can have all the rights and priveleges of traditional marriage. But don't wreck "husband and wife" marriage for the rest of us.
You say no one chooses how they are born. But what about pedophiles and other persons born with certain powerful urges. They also can't help how they were born, but I am sure even you will treat them differently, albeit with respect and decency.
So someone asked "who does it hurt if gay people marry?". Well, it shouldn't hurt anybody if they leave our marriage alone! Don't change the wording to "party A and party B". We should have a choice whether our marriage certificate says "husband and wife" or "party A and party B"
Unions between siblings or close relatives in fact is considered a NORM in some exclusive cultures. In the Western society, however, it is considered abnormal and therefore it is restricted by law. Perhaps it shouldn't be. But this paradigm of "normativity" is at the root of all of this. Let me just make it clear that I may not like the marriage between siblings, but if that is what they desire and the love is true, I personally have no problem with the idea of them getting "married" and calling each other "husband" and "wife." UNLESS, it poses a "threat to others" like it would if they decide to reproduce. In such case, the offspring that may be conceived would be at serious risk for adverse health and cognitive outcomes. So may be the law is necessary in that case.
And being unfaithful part - THAT is exactly my point. Defining marriage by gender - "between a woman and a man" - is ultimately meaningless when it comes down to the concept of "marriage." Let me ask you again - does this mean that if a trans man (born female but identify as a man) decides to get married with a woman, you'd be HONESTLY okay with it? Supportive of it? Because he is a man, "a husband" and the marrying partner is a woman, "a wife?"
I also happen to be a person who is sympathetic to those who cannot help those "certain powerful urges." Even pedophiles. Because in essence, the feelings are natural to them. However, this is where once again, "threat to others' well beings" comes into play. In the case of pedophilia, minors are known to lack the abilities to make sound judgement (based on their cognitive, emotional, and psychological development) and thus being in a relationship with adults may not be made with the true, sound desire or wish or needs of the children. Consequently, allowing pedophilic "marriage" would pose a potential threat to children's well being, because it is difficult to decipher whether being in a pedophilic relationship is truly what the child wants, or merely a result of a manipulation by his/her adult partner. With that said, I would not be surprised if there are children who are truly and honestly in love with their adult partner.
This is why no one cares if two ADULTS whose ages are apart - as a matter of fact, my father is 21 years senior of my mother - get married. Adults CAN (developmentally speaking) make sound judgement true to their best interest.
Sorry, but what do you mean by our marriage? Is a Britney Spears marriage part of your marriage?
The Church can define marriage however it sees fit. Be happy with that. What do you care if in the eyes of the law that marriage has a different meaning than those defined by religious institutions? It sure seems like your imposing your will based on meanings in a religious institution on a secular one.
Look, the law can define things that differ from other institutions. It happens everyday. Deal with it. Organic food, life, death, etc., all have different definitions. If you and your maker know what marriage is, who cares what anyone else says and stop being so preoccupied with debasing a concept.
Mr. Hatch - Equating people in same sex marriages with pedophilia? That is completely out of line. And citing "tradition" as the basis of your argument? Tradition: an inherited, established, or customary pattern of thought, action, or behavior (as a religious practice or a social custom). Slavery was a tradition in this country for over 200 years. The point being that just because its "traditional," doesn't mean its right.
You're clearly offended by the idea of same sex marriage - fair enough, you are absolutely entitled to your opinion. But its nothing more than that - your opinion. And fortunately for you, same sex marriage has nothing to do with you! So you needn't work so hard to obstruct it! If you find it so offensive, I suggest you simply look the other way.
As you yourself said in your statement, "we should have a choice." And you're absolutely right - by broading the "traditional" defintion of marriage, we can succeed in give everyone a choice.
I'm so very disappointed in California. I thought our state was different than the rest of the country. Apparently bigotry and irrational fear grip the masses here too. This constitutional codification of hate shames us all. For the religious folk who championed this cause, why do your religious beliefs so directly conflict with the golden rule? Gays weren't hurting you, but your initiative and votes in favor have badly hurt many good people of our state. I truly thought we were better than this.
The California ballot initiative system is...unsound. I know, I know...I guess I have to define the term "unsound" to start my argument. But I'm tired and don't want to, and I think the definition I intend will be clear in context of my argument.
The California legislature twice passed legislation (ABs 849 and 43 allowing same-sex marriage, and that legislation was twice vetoed by the Governator. Fair enough. Meantime, in 2004, Mayor Gavin Newsom decided, from another executive branch's standpoint, to start allowing the marriages. Of course this spurned a court battle, but...given our separation of powers system...this was just the natural course of checks and balances. That third check? The COURTS. So, contrary to when folks decry the "rogue court system," the California court battle on this issue was merely the necessary 'last' piece of the puzzle.
So, enter almost four years of nitty-gritty, hard-fought, well-researched, tireless effort on both sides to dig deep and really hash out the nooks and crannies of the issue of same-sex marriage as it pertains to constitutional and civil rights. Both sides engaged tremendously. Both sides produced mounds of relevant evidence and well-seasoned arguments. And then three rounds of intelligent and experienced judges questioned and pondered meticulously the questions at hand. Questions that make you literally take a sentence and break it down to its bare logic...compare it to the arguments laid out in the CA Constitution...require teams of law interns, attorneys, and the like to scour the books and really test those arguments laid before them. And then they decided. Regardless of their actual decision -- which, sure, happened to be the side I wanted to win -- they decided. 'Nuff said.
And now those thousands of brain hours are made futile just because of a few months of dumbed-down campaign ads convinced some folks who probably haven't even read the California Constitution in its entirety that Prop 8 will prevent kids from being forced to attend gay weddings.
I just hate that this is how the issue will be decided. Silly ads on both sides which don't represent the entire arguments (how could they?) will be the fate of discrimination being written into the constitution in this state. Even if in May the CA Supreme Court had voted "against" gay marriage, it wouldn't have resulted in an actual amendment to the constitution. And in Mass., where the courts ruled in favor, there was a larger amount of time until the opposition could really do anything about it...in which time it was proven that, really guys, it's not a big deal.
I know this was our chance to defeat the chances of further discrimination --- that's the 'bright side' of opposing Prop 8 --- but it just seems like such a doomed and redundant process that in my opinion 'undoes' all the other stuff that was 'did.' I mean, if we were going to leave it to the masses, why didn't we just do that from the get-go? It now equates to hoping that the U.S. Supreme Court hears the case, and that's really frustrating because who knows? They like to stay away from stuff like this.
And now WE -- the ones who have passed laws twice and won four years of court battles -- have to plea to the nation's highest court to even listen, and the douchetards who can rally ignorance (I mean, how hard is that??) get to sit back and enjoy the ride.
will someone please explain how something which has never been challenged in any way needs to be "restored". the last time i checked, there was no law in any way infringing upon the rights of opposite sex marriages. when the court ruled in favor of permitting marriage rights for all citizens, was anyone forced into a relationship against their will? was any marriage annulled for failing to be homosexual? where was anyone infringed upon?
when did marriage become an elitist country-club? are y'all afraid that the prestige will be ruined if "those people" are allowed in?
what gives!
how is it that majority of the people in california cannot grasp that even though their church and the government both use the word marriage, we still are supposed to maintain a separation of church and state! permitting loving, commited couples to be legally recognized does not mean that you will be forced to to anything you don't want to.
if people want radical religious theocracy so bad they should just come out and say so, at least be honest about it. stop trying to hide behind obviously frail and disingenuous justifications.
personally.... i say this has gone too far. no more religious tolerance. the christians have demonstrated time and again their inability to live civilly with others in a free society. let's send the puritans back to england.
I'm personally very dissappointed for the gay couple we met at family camp with their adopted son. Such great guys and recently married after years as a couple. Last week, over a lunchtime discussion of the subject, our only pro-8 colleague expressed her concern that her daughter might be confused about her own sexuality by schools teaching gay marriage. Her certainty (determination?) that her 7 year old was not gay seemed to convey a lack of acceptance of gays. We looked at the pro and con videos on the internet and voted anti-8. As best I can tell pro-8 was based at least in part on fear or religious belief ... which in large part were the sentiments which delivered us George Bush for a second term. I expect we'll all be spending $100M or so in the next round to reverse this and restore equality for all Californians. I'd rather be spending it on schools myself ... a sad result for California in my humble opinion.
Seems the NO-8 people are guilty of the same short-sightedness you use to describe the Yes-8. For example, it isn't just a religious feeling (although without Religious fervor it would not have passed) for everyone. I voted yes based on Personal Belief, not religion. It is also about saying any marriage is the same as that between a man and woman. It isn't! Never will be. Same sex couples have the right to be just that and the fear mongers among you are morally unjust to reference past racial discrimination when discussing Prop 8. I will never be able to look across a table and say definitively that Person A is gay or straight. But I can almost certainly look across a table and say a person is Asian, Black, or other. Maybe not with 100% certainty but I'll get it right more often than not. Then I can choose whether to UNFAIRLY discriminate or not. And that is the root of immoral and unfair discrimination.
So for those of you who say it is "Hate", I say look in the mirror. Review your inner feelings about George Bush for example. Do you "hate" him? Then you can be no more moral than a person in favor of Prop 8. Hate speech works both ways folks! Maybe we should build a sewage plant somewhere and call it the Gay Marriage Sewage Plant?
So, with your argument of looking across the room, can you tell a Muslim, a Jew, a Christian, a Christian who agrees with you, a member of the KKK, a Nazi? Nazi's did not have to look across the room to find Jews but they did find them tatoo them, round them up and kill them. Your argument that a group of people does not deserve protection because you can not distinguish them means we should not protect people based on religion either. We do though. Discrimination and hate is not limited to physical characteristics. I am in none of the traditional groups that experiences hate. I am not gay or lesbian or any ethnic minority. I am agnostic which does cause me to be hated by some as a fence sitter. I do not however try to take away your right to believe in a religion that at its root honors human sacrifice. You can have your beliefs just like any other religion can have theirs. Don't forget though, if your are Christian, the Romans used to feed you to the lions because you did not agree with them. Do you think they could have told you apart from anyone else if they were looking across the room. Examine your arguments. Look in the mirror yourself and ask if would you like to be the one that was told you could have the shorter end of the seperate but equal stick. Think about it.
I know this was our chance to defeat the chances of further discrimination --- that's the 'bright side' of opposing Prop 8 --- but it just seems like such a doomed and redundant process that in my opinion 'undoes' all the other stuff that was 'did.' I mean, if we were going to leave it to the masses, why didn't we just do that from the get-go? It now equates to hoping that the U.S. Supreme Court hears the case, and that's really frustrating because who knows? They like to stay away from stuff like this.
Automated ForexForex Investment
11/02/2008 3:22:12 PM
