The W
Views: 101454151
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
19.12.14 2020
The W - Current Events & Politics - Prop 8 The Musical (Page 2)
This thread has 9 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 5.12
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 Next
(277 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (44 total)
Zeruel
Thirty Millionth Hit
Moderator








Since: 2.1.02
From: The Silver Spring in the Land of Mary.

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 3 hours
#21 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.05
    Originally posted by StingArmy


    And you say the only difference between civil unions and marriages in your eyes is church approval, but in reality there are practical and legal distinctions between civil unions/domestic partnerships and marriages. That's the whole point of this battle.


For some reason, I always thought that a justice of the peace wedding = civil union. I remember my dad telling me something about this back in the day. First Santa, then frog's legs being the same as chicken legs, and now civil unions. Wrong again pop. Thanks dad!

Further research is needed, but I feel I should modify my original post. Why can't there be same-sex justice of the peace wedding, and leave the churches out of the debate? Their religion is not infringed upon, yet people won't be discriminated against. Everyone wins (sorta), right?



-- 2006 Time magazine Person of the Year --

"...Oh, the band is out on the field!! He's gonna go into the end zone! He's gone into the end zone!!
-- Joe Starkey -- November 20, 1982 -- The Play --
Jellofiend
Weisswurst








Since: 4.5.04
From: Oxford, Ohio

Since last post: 944 days
Last activity: 944 days
#22 Posted on
    Originally posted by TheBucsFan


      Maybe the Drew Carey Show has steered me wrong, but aren't divorcees prohibited from marrying (or at least having their marriages recognized) by the Catholic Church. That seems to be somewhat relevant to the religious/civil marriage divide.


    Maybe by the church, but who cares? The church can pass what over stupid bullshit it wants. That's not the same as the government passing a law.Maybe by the church, but who cares? The church can pass what over stupid bullshit it wants. That's not the same as the government passing a law.

Let me clarify my point a bit. I'm talking less about a churches ability to place limits on marriage and more about that churches memberships ability to differentiate and accept the differences. This touches on what Zeruel said about the church and state not being able to jive on gay marriage. The church and state may disagree on divorce but a vast majority (gallup.com) believe divorce is morally acceptable. I think the same will apply with gay marriage.

I was thinking about this post (andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com) by Andrew Sullivan, a gay Catholic, when I posted. It starts off a tad slow, but it's a pretty good read.
    Originally posted by Sullivan, emphasis in original
    The reason the marriage debate is so intense is because neither side seems able to accept that the word "marriage" requires a certain looseness of meaning if it is to remain as a universal, civil institution. This is not that new. Catholics, for example, accept the word marriage to describe civil marriages that are second marriages, even though their own faith teaches them that those marriages don't actually exist as such. But most Catholics are able to set theological beliefs to one side and accept a theological untruth as a civil fact. After all, a core, undebatable Catholic doctrine is that marriage is for life. Divorce is not the end of that marriage in the eyes of God. And yet Catholics can tolerate fellow citizens who are not Catholic calling their non-marriages marriages - because Catholics have already accepted a civil-religious distinction. They can wear both hats in the public square.


The other option would be a system like Zeruel described of a civil union and religious marriage. I don't see that happening because marriage means a lot outside of a religious context even if it does have religious connotations to some people. I just wanted to emphasize that our views of marriage have been evolving over time even if church doctrine hasn't.
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 130 days
Last activity: 130 days
#23 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.33
    Originally posted by Jellofiend
    This touches on what Zeruel said about the church and state not being able to jive on gay marriage.


I seem to remember reading once that the church and the state are separate, which would imply that they don't have to agree. If the churches don't like government policy, they can fuck themselves. The government has no responsibility — or even authority — to cater to churches by creating a marriage policy that earns the churches' approval.

I agree with what I think you are saying — I think the government has no business recognizing marriage at all. However, I would include "civil unions" in that. What reason does the government have to recognize them in any form? But if they are going to recognize marriage for one group of people, they need to recognize it for all groups, unless there is some non-religious justification (i.e., marrying a 6-year-old, who cannot possibly understand the concept of or consent to marriage).

(edited by TheBucsFan on 7.12.08 1751)
StingArmy
Andouille








Since: 3.5.03
From: Georgia bred, you can tell by my Hawk jersey

Since last post: 12 days
Last activity: 37 min.
#24 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.61
    Originally posted by TheBucsFan
    I agree with what I think you are saying — I think the government has no business recognizing marriage at all. However, I would include "civil unions" in that. What reason does the government have to recognize them in any form?

That's an easy one: trusts, estates, wills, inheritance and intestacy, divorce, child custody, and all sort of other family law issues. It's a no brainer that it's gotta happen in some form. There are too many issues that arise when a couple gets divorced or when a married person dies for the government to be completely hands off on the marriage issue.
    Originally posted by Zeruel
    Further research is needed, but I feel I should modify my original post. Why can't there be same-sex justice of the peace wedding, and leave the churches out of the debate? Their religion is not infringed upon, yet people won't be discriminated against. Everyone wins (sorta), right?

This is exactly what opponents of Prop 8 want; that is, to let gay couples get a marriage license at the courthouse downtown so that they can enjoy the same legal privileges and benefits as straight couples. No one is trying to force any church to perform a gay marriage against its will. If a gay couple wants a ceremony to go along with their marriage license, they can get one while they're at the courthouse or they can provide for their own private ceremony at some place where they're welcome (perhaps even in their own homes).

- StingArmy
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 130 days
Last activity: 130 days
#25 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.25
    Originally posted by StingArmy
      Originally posted by TheBucsFan
      I agree with what I think you are saying — I think the government has no business recognizing marriage at all. However, I would include "civil unions" in that. What reason does the government have to recognize them in any form?

    That's an easy one: trusts, estates, wills, inheritance and intestacy,


... so, as the law stands now, if a single person dies, what happens?

    divorce,


This would not exist if marriage did not.


    child custody, and all sort of other family law issues.

... so, as the law stands now, if a single person has a child, what happens?
Mike Zeidler
Pepperoni








Since: 27.6.02

Since last post: 129 days
Last activity: 88 days
#26 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.96
    Originally posted by TheBucsFan
      Originally posted by StingArmy
        Originally posted by TheBucsFan
        I agree with what I think you are saying — I think the government has no business recognizing marriage at all. However, I would include "civil unions" in that. What reason does the government have to recognize them in any form?

      That's an easy one: trusts, estates, wills, inheritance and intestacy,


    ... so, as the law stands now, if a single person dies, what happens?

      divorce,


    This would not exist if marriage did not.


      child custody, and all sort of other family law issues.

    ... so, as the law stands now, if a single person has a child, what happens?


When a single person dies (without a legal will) their family splits up whatever property/money/offspring they have. This is how all the "evil aunts/uncles" in kids books come into play. If a gay couple has kids, and one of them dies, the dead person's family could forcibly take the children away, because there's no legal connection.



"Tattoos are the mullets of the aughts." - Mike Naimark
StingArmy
Andouille








Since: 3.5.03
From: Georgia bred, you can tell by my Hawk jersey

Since last post: 12 days
Last activity: 37 min.
#27 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.61
I think you are looking at this from the wrong perspective. Instead of asking what happens when a single person dies or has a child or whatever, you should be asking what would happen if marriage was not recognized by the government and one of the aforementioned situations occurred.

For example, let's start with estates and wills and whatnot. Let's say Adam marries Eve in their church. There's no government recognition of marriage so the government doesn't really care. Let's say Adam and Eve are happily married for 20 years, during which time Adam is the sole bread-winner of the family while Eve is a stay-at-home mom and housewife. At the end of those 20 years, Adam dies in a tragic accident. Wife and kid say they deserve something, but Adam's blood relatives (brothers, sisters, etc.) say they deserve everything. Without legally-recognized marriage, wife and kid are left out on the streets to fend for themselves.

Next let's look at divorce. Let's say Adam doesn't die in the car accident but instead Adam and Eve's relationship starts to fall apart, and after 20 years Eve wants to end the marriage. Adam tells Eve he's gonna keep all of the money they've saved up over the years because he was the only one working. Eve says he can't do that because without her help as a homemaker Adam could not have dedicated all of his time to his career. Of course we don't have government sanctioned marriage in this hypothetical world, so there is no basis for either of them taking their dispute to court. I don't even know how they would settle this. Pistols at 20 paces?

Finally, let's look at child custody. Assume Adam and Eve are getting divorced, but now we have to figure out what happens to their poor son. Let's say at the time of the divorce their son is 12 years old. Who gets custody? Adam says he should because he can provide for the kid financially. Eve says she should because she's the mother and she's the only one of the two who knows how to raise a child (plus maybe she claims that Adam was physically abusive too and that's why they're dissolving the marriage). There's no legal marriage though, so how the heck do we decide who's the kid's legal guardian? Maybe we're back to pistols at 20 paces, but only if we don't have a child abduction in the middle of the night first.

- StingArmy

(edited by StingArmy on 7.12.08 0827)
DrDirt
Banger








Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 15 days
Last activity: 9 hours
#28 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.45
    Originally posted by El Nastio
      Originally posted by DrDirt
      And please don't throw screwball examples like protecting the rights of pedophiles to diddle kids or whatever, you know what I mean.


    I don't know what you mean, please elaberate. I'm serious, please elaberate.


Here goes. In agruments like this where you speak of protecting the rights of the minority (or majority), a good way to derail the discussion is to go way off topic. I.e., you say "We have to protect the rights of the minority, well pedophiles and rapists are a minority, so why can't they do what they want." On complex issues like this and abortion that delve into people's personal religious/moral code the train gets derailed easily. It's understandable as this are issues where its easy to take offense.



Perception is reality
El Nastio
Andouille








Since: 14.1.02
From: Ottawa Ontario, by way of Walkerton

Since last post: 4 days
Last activity: 1 day
ICQ:  
#29 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.80
Actually, it is on topic. The logic being if one group who is defined by their sexual identity needs their rights protected, what about others who have unique sexual identities and need their rights protected?

CRZ raised an interesting point that most of the arguements in this thread seem to equate sexual identity/orientation with race. I think it's a perfectly valid arguement to equate sexual identities with other sexual identities.



You know, I really don't know what to put here. Close your eyes and thank of something funny!
MisterHenderson
Boerewors








Since: 3.5.06
From: New York

Since last post: 1888 days
Last activity: 1806 days
#30 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.33
Well, if nothing else. I've learned that if you don't agree with BucsFan, you're an idiot. Oh well, it's not everyone that can have an adult conversation.

How can you say that I'm 100% wrong, because I don't agree with YOUR definition of morality. My definition is pretty basic, if you're a married man and you're screwing your intern at work...it's immoral! If you don't have a problem with that, good for you. You must be very happy in your life. Just as I am happy in mine.

And the idea that lawmakers were shamed into this by the religious right is untrue.

But I am not going to waste anymore time trying to explain myself to you. I understand that we are completely apart on this and I just fine with that. YOU seem to want to try and change my mind. It's just not going to work.

Let's try moving on the something we can agree on? How 'bout them Giants, huh? Best team in the NFL, I say ;-)



I'm Free!
Leroy
Boudin blanc








Since: 7.2.02

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 22 hours
#31 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.92
    Originally posted by El Nastio
    The logic being if one group who is defined by their sexual identity needs their rights protected, what about others who have unique sexual identities and need their rights protected?


The comparisons have already been done - and they've found that homosexuas couples are more like, dare I say nearly identical to, heterosexual couples when it comes to marriage. Two consenting adults, lifelong commitment (sparing divorce, that is), love, desire for happiness and a family, monogamy, etc, etc. They have nothing more in common with "other sexual identities" than heterosexuality has in common with those "other sexual identities".

It's the main point of the issue - the only difference is the gender of the couple. Nothing more.

(edited by Leroy on 7.12.08 1107)


NonDescript
Tue @ 9a PDT

NonDescript Podcast

Homepage
Guru Zim
SQL Dejection
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: Bay City, OR

Since last post: 6 hours
Last activity: 5 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#32 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.53
There's clearly a line in the sand.

If one person is acting against a non-consenting person (legally or actually non-consenting, including people who are legally unable due to consent because of age, inacacpitationk, etc.) then this isn't allowed, and isn't what we are talking about.

Ask yourself if the relationship fits this test (Heterosexual or Homosexual)

One adult wishes to create a union with one other adult to form a legally recognized union with specific rights and responsibilities.

That's all we are talking about. No one is saying that this is for pedophiles or rapists.

If one group of people is allowed to have this union, then all groups of people should be allowed to have this union. Right now the wording is man and woman instead of adult. No one is recommending that it be changed to sheep-fucker and livestock.

It needs to be called marriage and exactly the same as marriage, because if it is not, then there will be different rights and responsibilities for different people, and not all people will have the same rights and privileges under the law.

I realize that the simple test outlined above doesn't address consenting adults who wish to have an incestuous relationship. I am really no comfortable with incest and I think there are other laws in the public health arena that probably would prohibit this.

I can relate to how a lot of you probably feel about gay relationships, because I imagine it is similar to how I feeel about the thought of a brother and sister getting married. But even though it makes me very uncomfortable, the question I have to ask myself is, why should it be disallowed? Obviously you wouldn't want them to have children. This is already covered in public health law, I would imagine. Should people want to marry their siblings? I hope not. If two people earnestly did want this though, what is better for society at large - that I feel good about it, or that those people are able to live their lives as they choose?

I hope to never see one, it would make me horribly uncomfortable, and I don't know that I'd want a neighbor that was had an incestuous marriage, but I'd probably support their right to get married - because civil rights are important for everyone.




Sign up for Folding@Home and join our team. PM me for details.

Ignorance is bliss for you, hell for me.
Mike Zeidler
Pepperoni








Since: 27.6.02

Since last post: 129 days
Last activity: 88 days
#33 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.96
    Originally posted by Guru Zim
    There's clearly a line in the sand.

    If one person is acting against a non-consenting person (legally or actually non-consenting, including people who are legally unable due to consent because of age, inacacpitationk, etc.) then this isn't allowed, and isn't what we are talking about.


What's really odd is that until less than 30 years ago, it was seen as *impossible* for a married man to rape his wife. She consented at the time of marriage, so she must always be willing. Is that what "marriage traditionalists" want to go back to? The slope that women's rights have slowly marched up is probably more prone to slippage backwards than the imagined slippery slope that anti-gay marriage people worry about.



"Tattoos are the mullets of the aughts." - Mike Naimark
Leroy
Boudin blanc








Since: 7.2.02

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 22 hours
#34 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.92
    Originally posted by Guru Zim
    I hope to never see one, it would make me horribly uncomfortable, and I don't know that I'd want a neighbor that was had an incestuous marriage, but I'd probably support their right to get married - because civil rights are important for everyone.


FWIW-

Marriage between first cousins is currently LEGAL in the state of California.




NonDescript
Tue @ 9a PDT

NonDescript Podcast

Homepage
StingArmy
Andouille








Since: 3.5.03
From: Georgia bred, you can tell by my Hawk jersey

Since last post: 12 days
Last activity: 37 min.
#35 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.61
    Originally posted by Leroy
    FWIW-

    Marriage between first cousins is currently LEGAL in the state of California.

It's legal in several states actually. Incest is banned usually (I think) based on health concerns. Or more accurately, even if incest is taboo mostly due to the "ickyness" factor, bans on incest are constitutionally justifiable on grounds of public health concerns.

I don't know much at all about the research in this area, but I'm guessing the states that allow first cousins to marry have decided that the health risks to potential offspring of first cousins (or more distant relatives) are minimal and/or don't outweigh the right to marry who you want.

- StingArmy
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 130 days
Last activity: 130 days
#36 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.25
    Originally posted by Zundian
    When a single person dies (without a legal will) their family splits up whatever property/money/offspring they have. This is how all the "evil aunts/uncles" in kids books come into play. If a gay couple has kids, and one of them dies, the dead person's family could forcibly take the children away, because there's no legal connection.


When a married person dies without a will, why do we assume the spouse should get everything? What if the deceased wanted their brothers or sisters to have everything, but now those brothers and sisters are left out in the cold? Surely there is a way to handle this without getting in bed with the churches?

The solution seems pretty simple to me: If any person dies without a will, a court decides what happens to the person's estate, if there is a dispute. That's pretty much exactly what happens now anyway. I don't think a law that says the husband/wife gets everything automatically is any better than a law that says brothers and/or sisters get everything.

    Originally posted by El Nastio
    Actually, it is on topic. The logic being if one group who is defined by their sexual identity needs their rights protected, what about others who have unique sexual identities and need their rights protected?


Gays are no more "defined by their sexual identity" than the Christians fighting against them are. They are only defined by their sexual identity because the church has successfully convinced people that the terms "homosexuality" and "gay sex" mean exactly the same thing.

    Originally posted by MisterHenderson
    Well, if nothing else. I've learned that if you don't agree with BucsFan, you're an idiot. Oh well, it's not everyone that can have an adult conversation.


Says the person who supports legislation governing people who don't subscribe to his personal view on what is "moral" and "immoral." Got it.


    How can you say that I'm 100% wrong, because I don't agree with YOUR definition of morality.


I have offered nothing to define my own sense of morality, so you don't really know what you do and don't agree with where my views are concerned. All I said you were wrong about was your theory that legislation forcing your views on "moral" and "immoral" would work. It has failed repeatedly in the past because you cannot govern that way. America has repeatedly passed laws (or not passed them) based on similar arguments — "separate but equal, v. 1.0"; prohibition; women's suffrage (or lack thereof) — and they have repeatedly failed. Why do people continue to do this?


    My definition is pretty basic, if you're a married man and you're screwing your intern at work...it's immoral!


That's really great. I really care. Can you tell me, though, what right you have to tell someone else not to do it, assuming the intern is consenting?


    And the idea that lawmakers were shamed into this by the religious right is untrue.


Really? Do you really think churches don't get involved in politics, or tell people how to vote? Do I really need to go fetch links to stories about pastors telling churchgoers that anyone who voted for Obama needs to spend some time in the confessional?


    But I am not going to waste anymore time trying to explain myself to you. I understand that we are completely apart on this and I just fine with that. YOU seem to want to try and change my mind. It's just not going to work.


I'm not trying to change your mind, I'm trying to get an argument from you that makes a shred of sense. Arguments based on "morals" carry no water legally, ethically or logically, and you haven't offered much beyond that. I want to understand how THIS separate but equal doctrine is different from any in the past that failed miserably.

(edited by TheBucsFan on 8.12.08 1118)
StingArmy
Andouille








Since: 3.5.03
From: Georgia bred, you can tell by my Hawk jersey

Since last post: 12 days
Last activity: 37 min.
#37 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.61
    Originally posted by TheBucsFan
    When a married person dies without a will, why do we assume the spouse should get everything? What if the deceased wanted their brothers or sisters to have everything, but now those brothers and sisters are left out in the cold? Surely there is a way to handle this without getting in bed with the churches?

Actually, the law DOESN'T assume the spouse should get everything. The way things work now, the law protects spouse and child from getting NOTHING, even if there's a will that grants blood family everything.
    Originally posted by TheBucsFan
    The solution seems pretty simple to me: If any person dies without a will, a court decides what happens to the person's estate, if there is a dispute. That's pretty much exactly what happens now anyway.

Okay, well, it's pretty easy for a brother or a sister or another blood relative to prove who they are and show why they deserve a piece of the deceased's estate, but how on earth does a widow or widower do it if there's no legal concept of marriage?

- StingArmy
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 130 days
Last activity: 130 days
#38 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.25
    Originally posted by StingArmy
      Originally posted by TheBucsFan
      When a married person dies without a will, why do we assume the spouse should get everything? What if the deceased wanted their brothers or sisters to have everything, but now those brothers and sisters are left out in the cold? Surely there is a way to handle this without getting in bed with the churches?

    Actually, the law DOESN'T assume the spouse should get everything. The way things work now, the law protects spouse and child from getting NOTHING, even if there's a will that grants blood family everything.


I don't know nearly enough about these laws to expand on this. I believe you, but I don't think it makes a difference. I don't think the law should even assume a person wanted their children and/or spouse to get anything. We need to get people to make wills; even in the current situation, those that do not leave a will subject the family to at least the potential for a nasty dispute over the estate. Even wills can be contested, of course, but that's a separate and unavoidable aspect.

      Originally posted by TheBucsFan
      The solution seems pretty simple to me: If any person dies without a will, a court decides what happens to the person's estate, if there is a dispute. That's pretty much exactly what happens now anyway.

    Okay, well, it's pretty easy for a brother or a sister or another blood relative to prove who they are and show why they deserve a piece of the deceased's estate, but how on earth does a widow or widower do it if there's no legal concept of marriage?

    - StingArmy


I think if I spent any amount of time living with a person or in general fulfilling the role of what a husband is, I would have a pretty easy time proving it. Bills in my name, neighbors that saw us together all the time, joint checking accounts, etc.

Of course, a much better solution is to encourage people to actually make a will. When Terry Schaivo died, wasn't there a huge rush in people filing living wills, in case the same thing happened to them? It's possible that was bullshit overplayed by the media, but I think people would adjust once they realized they needed a will.

I'm not making the laws, but I think the law in its current form — which is essentially deferring to religious institutions to make the government’s job easier — is lazy. The solution is there, if we are willing to actually produce it. But it's so much easier to leave things the way they've always been — until, of course, the inherent intolerance and discrimination that come with that archaic method lead to a massive nationwide debate.
Corajudo
Frankfurter








Since: 7.11.02
From: Dallas, TX

Since last post: 164 days
Last activity: 4 days
#39 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.73
As far as the will/what happens in death thing, the difference is that the spouse gets the benefit of the doubt. For example, after I got married, I talked to the HR rep to get my beneficiary changed to my wife. The rep laughed and said the law assumes the wife is the beneficiary unless I can get my wife to agree to sign over that right to someone else. And, that would have covered pension, 401K, life insurance, etc. That's pretty dramatically different than for a homosexual couple.

The bottom line, as mentioned earlier, is the loaded term marriage, and neither side is willing to give ground. Moreover, each side's reasons for not giving ground are rational and central to their interests. So, I don't see any middle ground on this issue. Regardless, as Leroy mentioned in another thread, the demographics definitely favor same sex marriage.

    Originally posted by TheBucsFan
    Do you really think churches don't get involved in politics, or tell people how to vote? Do I really need to go fetch links to stories about pastors telling churchgoers that anyone who voted for Obama needs to spend some time in the confessional?

This is no different than any other special interest group spending their money and using their influence. I have no problem with this, the same as I have no problem with any other special interest group making their political preferences known. It's not like it's a shock to anyone that the Mormon church opposes same sex marriage. Or, the Catholic church (but they weren't the drivers behind the Prop 8 efforts). It's part of their mission.

Really, the best response is to make sure your side is heard as well. But, if you're trying to change anyone's mind or convince someone of the rationality of your position, then you may want to be less shrill, less judging and less condescending. But, YMMV.
DrDirt
Banger








Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 15 days
Last activity: 9 hours
#40 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.45
As this is becoming a very detailed thread (which is fine and intersting), one last thought. The institution of marriage is not under assault from the gay community and allowing gay couples the same rights as hetero couples isn't the downfall of society and marriage. Hetero couples are the ones cheapening and destroying marriage in our society with the way that we treat the institution.

I don't think the gay marriage side (the non-extremists)insist that we like it or celebrate it. I think they hope that they could be accepted and left alone and afforded the same rights as hetero couples. I don't believe most say you have to change your views and say it is personally okay. I am not including extremists who want to shove their lifestyle down people's throats.



Perception is reality
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 Next
Thread rated: 5.12
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 Next
Thread ahead: Illinois Governor held in inquiry into fill Obama's Senate seat
Next thread: Hey Canadians!
Previous thread: Canned Juice
(277 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
Because we all know Cadbury is EVIL.
The W - Current Events & Politics - Prop 8 The Musical (Page 2)Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.776 seconds.