Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed
×

Maryland Civil Marriage Protection Act passes House committee, 12-10

Community/Meta P8TT fundraising

By Adam Bink

Some last minute maneuvering saved this one. Delegate Tiffany Alston, who was a sponsor but changed her mind this week, voted against it, leaving the Committee Chairman, who is on the record as opposing same-sex marriage, to cast the deciding vote in favor of it.

Sources have been telling me we are still short of the votes to pass it in the full chamber, so we have to hit those phones. I will keep an eye out for a target list, and then we can repeat our work on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”- calls, calls, calls through the vote. One last push to get it to Gov. O’Malley’s desk.

Vote count of today’s vote:

Joseph F. Vallario, Jr., Chair – YES
Kathleen M. Dumais, – YES

Tiffany T. Alston _ NO
Curtis S. (Curt) Anderson _ YES
Sam Arora – YES
Jill P. Carter – YES
Luke H. Clippinger _ YES
John W. E. Cluster, Jr. _ NO
Frank M. Conaway, Jr. – YES
Don H. Dwyer, Jr. -NO
Michael J. Hough – NO
Kevin Kelly – NO
Susan C. Lee – YES
Susan K. McComas – NO
Michael A. McDermott – NO
Keiffer J. Mitchell, Jr. – YES
Neil C. Parrott – NO
Luiz R. S. Simmons – YES
Michael D. Smigiel, Sr. – NO
Kriselda Valderrama – YES
Geraldine Valentino-Smith – NO
Jeffrey D. Waldstreicher – YES

207 Comments

  • 1. Dave in ME  |  March 4, 2011 at 7:54 am

    Me first!

    Great news!!!

    Dave in Maine

  • 2. Kathleen  |  March 4, 2011 at 7:59 am

    As a matter of strategy, in general, how much is accomplished by out-of-state callers lobbying these MD reps? I can understand calling Congressional reps, even when they're not our own; a federal law directly impacts the whole country. But does it work to call state reps when we don't live in the state?

    I don't have a lot of experience in national political advocacy, so I'm hoping Adam or someone else with this expertise can offer some insight. Thanks!

  • 3. Ronnie  |  March 4, 2011 at 8:01 am

    =
    <3…Ronnie

  • 4. Rhie  |  March 4, 2011 at 8:09 am

    Rise and shine, it's vote-whipping time!

    :)

  • 5. Kate  |  March 4, 2011 at 8:26 am

    This from the NOM blog relating to the topic:

    "It’s not clear they have the votes. It’s pretty clear to me, after the outpouring of public opposition, especially from the black church, that if they pass this bill, the people of Maryland will veto it."

    Uh……… the people will veto it?????

  • 6. Kathleen  |  March 4, 2011 at 8:32 am

    They intend to try for a popular referendum to repeal it if it passes. There is a mechanism under MD law for doing this.

  • 7. Kathleen  |  March 4, 2011 at 8:32 am

    I meant a "voter referendum"

  • 8. Ronnie  |  March 4, 2011 at 8:46 am

    "the black church"……as opposed to the white church?……NOM = FAIL …..every time they try to play the race card they come off as offensive & bordering on flat out racist…. You know who else calls it "The Black Church"?….the KKK….that's who….shame on NOM ….. > I ….Ronnie

  • 9. Straight Ally #3008  |  March 4, 2011 at 8:53 am

    I know, right? Lots of members of "the black church" in the New York Senate were on our side.

  • 10. Straight Ally #3008  |  March 4, 2011 at 8:54 am

    Continued….

    This attitude should surprise no one, given the murderous laws they're trying to push in Uganda.

  • 11. Kathleen  |  March 4, 2011 at 9:07 am

    UPDATE: LCR v. USA (DADT case)
    Amicus brief submitted by Church of God of Prophecy Chaplaincy Ministries, et al, in support of government. http://www.scribd.com/doc/50056581

    We'll be seeing a number of these – today's the deadline.

  • 12. Sagesse  |  March 4, 2011 at 9:16 am

    Maryland is important. Even if it goes to a referendum, it's important that the legislature pass it. Fingers crossed.

  • 13. bJason  |  March 4, 2011 at 9:25 am

    Isn't today a deadline for some response in the Golinski case, too? So hard to keep up, sometimes. :)

  • 14. Ronnie  |  March 4, 2011 at 9:25 am

    FAIL…I stopped reading at "religious liberty"…..The United States Armed Forces is NOT a Christian military….It is a secular military that is paid for by ALL tax paying Americans, LGBT & Straight of ALL faiths & non-faiths…..& once again…what about the religious liberty of all the soldiers that don't follow their religion?…Oh that's right, (sarcasm coming) they don't matter…they are not entitled to their 1st amendment rights unless they practice those rights how the Religious Reich demands… except that is NOT how this country works…….The people filing these animus…I mean amicus briefs are ALL INGRATES…….. FAIL….. > I …..Ronnie

  • 15. Kathleen  |  March 4, 2011 at 9:35 am

    Here's the latest on Golinski – Lambda Legal submitted their response to the governments answers to the Order to Show Cause: http://www.lambdalegal.org/news/pr/us_20110303_do

    There's a link in the press release to the latest filing.

  • 16. Carpool Cookie  |  March 4, 2011 at 9:56 am

    Thanks Kathleen. I'm not quite sure what this is arguing about. They seem to be pushing for Rational Basis Review in the first part…now they're into what chaplains will and will not be able to say? ("important regulations historically safeguarded chaplains’ right to conduct ministry activities consistent with their faith group’s beliefs. However, in light of Congress’s actions with § 654, these regulations no longer sufficiently protect chaplains from the coming threat to their ministry as evidenced by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who suggested that Service members who disagree with the repeal of § 654 should “find another place to work.” p.13)

    I don't think the intent of the lawsuit is to overhaul anyone's religious beliefs…

    Must keep reading…

  • 17. Richard A. Jernigan  |  March 4, 2011 at 10:00 am

    Checking in. This is GREAT news! Now to keep up the work to make sure it passes all the way to Governor O'Malley's desk!

  • 18. bJason  |  March 4, 2011 at 10:05 am

    Could you be more awesome>??!!! I think not.

  • 19. bJason  |  March 4, 2011 at 10:09 am

    Everyone, bear with me. Kathleen is (thoughtfully) trying to teach me how to do the boldy, italicy thing so I don't do a replay of my Attribute Overtake of the threads. :)

    All mistakes are mine and should cast no shadow of doubt on my teacher!

  • 20. Ronnie  |  March 4, 2011 at 10:41 am

    Ummmm…. : / …..Ronnie

  • 21. Richard A. Jernigan  |  March 4, 2011 at 10:42 am

    And I hope you are wrong about this Maggie. As for the "outpouring of public opposition" that you describe, just how much of that was not from residents of Maryland, but people NOM had bussed in from out of state, which is their habit to do!

  • 22. Kathleen  |  March 4, 2011 at 10:42 am

    Maggie, at least here people can leave comments without moderating opposing views out of existence. http://nomblog.com/5887/

    (I suggest not creating more traffic to their site – the link is in case anyone doubts this is just verbatim what is on the NOM blog)

  • 23. JonT  |  March 4, 2011 at 11:12 am

    You and me both CC.

  • 24. Rich  |  March 4, 2011 at 11:13 am

    I have posted a number of responses to this NOM post. No go; they will use whatever outlandish avenue they can to make inroads. The Race Card is reprehensible and a sure sign that panic has set in. Maggie is desperate.

  • 25. grod  |  March 4, 2011 at 11:15 am

    @Dave in ME
    ME is always first!
    Looking at the map of the USA from a Maritimer's eyes!

  • 26. Rhie  |  March 4, 2011 at 11:16 am

    Seriously. I keep having to tell people there isn't any such thing as ONE attitude or belief system among any group, including people of color, women, and LGBT.

  • 27. Michelle Evans  |  March 4, 2011 at 11:18 am

    Yes, a very hard mess to read. Can't believe the typos I found, too. You'd think if you were planning to file a paper with a court that you'd at least proof read first. Idiots.

    As for the whole religious liberty thing, they seem to forget how they are stomping on the religious liberties of all those who may believe in god, but also believe in the rights of human beings. As Carpool Cookie mentioned, how about flesh and blood mortal people? They do like to conveniently forget that sort of thing in favor of some unseen entity. Personally I prefer the Flying Spaghetti Monster. :-)

  • 28. Michelle Evans  |  March 4, 2011 at 11:20 am

    Yes, and all the money from out of state, too.

  • 29. Rhie  |  March 4, 2011 at 11:22 am

    I think that even if it does get on the ballot, it will stay. We have a year and a half to show how much of a non-issue it is to allow gay people to marry. We have the benefit of two years of conversation, and education. 08 was a sucker punch. This is a fair(er) fight.

    I highly doubt they will get the signatures. Maryland has a very strict referendum system, at least comparatively.

  • 30. Rhie  |  March 4, 2011 at 11:26 am

    Which black church? No such thing as a monolithic minority, ever. You might want to avoid that mistake in the future as it makes you sound extremely ignorant if not downright racist.

    And what opposition? Have you seen the latest MD and national polls? In every honest poll more people support equality than in the last.

    Oh, and if you even think about going to complain about this site after you are called out on this, consider the fact that this post was allowed in and is allowed to stay up. Not true with any anti-equality site, hon.

  • 31. Richard A. Jernigan  |  March 4, 2011 at 11:33 am

    I think I will make a FSM cake after I finish my classes. Can it be rainbow colored?

  • 32. Richard A. Jernigan  |  March 4, 2011 at 11:35 am

    And especially not true of Maggie's site, on which she, Brian, and Louis share admin duties! Hello, Maggie, Louis and Brian! Are you guys enjoying your menage a trois?

  • 33. Rich  |  March 4, 2011 at 11:41 am

    No go Maggie. You come into our web-site and cut and paste your stand. At least do us the courtesy and allow us to deliver honest, reactive and thoughtful assessments of your posts, in your own web site. In short you are a racist as well as a bigot. You would vilify the black population in a New York Minute if they didn't support your bigotry. Polls in Maryland tell us that marriage equality is not a primary issue for Black voters so your bigotry is your own. But this is the demographic you will now couch to advance your cause. Have you no shame? Maryland has advanced marriage equality because it's the right thing to do; individual members of House and Senate will come to this conclusion in their own way…sometimes in angst but always because the Clarion Call of this great nation is for justice and equality for all. Gay children and straight children will not settle for bigotry and the old ways of prejudice in the United States of America. The incredible revelation to most Americans is that there is no threat that the sky will fall when loving responsible couples, gay and straight, can marry. Families do matter and not just yours. So Maggie, I reject your attitude; I reject your philosophy, I reject your bigotry. In short Maggie, I reject you.

  • 34. Ronnie  |  March 4, 2011 at 11:47 am

    Can somebody please tell me what is a "black church"?…….I mean my cousin-in-law is African-American but he goes to a church with his white wife (my cousin). A church that has members of all races ; Asian, Latino, Black, White, Asian-African, Latino-Irish, Middle Eastern-Italian. Yup, I have met them all. Does "black church" mean it is painted black? ….I'm just asking so that I know if I should go to the "white church" because my mom is white or should I go to the "black church" because my dad is black or is there a special church for people who are mocha? …Inquiring minds want to know? Maggie Gallagher, are you implying that people at the "black church" are of a darker complexion congregation where white people don't or are not allowed to attend?

    See what I mean when I point out, when NOM plays the race card they are always offensive & bordering on flat out racist or implying that someone is racist like when Maggie Gallagher wrote about the article in the WaPo yesterday about Sam Arora written by an openly gay Black-American male journalist as an example used, in some unfounded way, in which she accused the gay community (or in her words the "gay machine") of attacking black democrats & now Indian-Americans….even though, NOWHERE in the article she was referring too mentioned race, nationality or skin tone…..

    Lying is unethical & immoral, Maggie Gallagher & it is a SIN too…..just saying…..

    Again, as an African-American, I am 100% offended by Maggie Gallagher's brazen, obnoxious, & ignorant use of the race card…..but what would I expect from an uppity white woman who, despite having a child out of wedlock, lies, cheats & steals on a daily basis, spouts out offensive, derogatory & judgmental attacks towards LGBT kids & teens as well as adults both single, in relationships & families who are also LGBT & Straight, thinks she is superior to all of the aforementioned because she is heterosexual & follows a version of Christianity.

    Maybe too many commas, yeah?….whateves…you get the gist….. : / …..Ronnie

  • 35. Sagesse  |  March 4, 2011 at 12:36 pm

    Navy seeks to discharge sailor found asleep in bed with another male sailor
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/arti

    Sigh.

  • 36. John C.  |  March 4, 2011 at 1:19 pm

    I was an intern at a US Senator's Office in DC. I must say that we did not record the votes/calls of non-constitutents nor did we read or deal with mail from out of state. Mail from out of state was sent to the Senior Democratic senator from the state it came from (or the Senior Senator if no Dems). Even though the issues are of national importance, only those constituents from the state we represented really mattered. While I cannot say for sure this pratice went on in all offices, I wouldn't doubt it.

    I have to imagine that the same is true for state reps. and senators. The only ones who really matter are those who can vote for the person they're calling.

  • 37. Owen  |  March 4, 2011 at 1:54 pm

    Sorry, I'm voting FOR marriage equality when it comes up on the ballot in my home state of Maryland.

    I'm voting for it so children of gay couples can have MARRIED PARENTS, since the social sciences tell us this is the ideal situation for kids.

    You know, something your children didn't have when you first had them.

  • 38. Owen  |  March 4, 2011 at 2:00 pm

    I do have to ask, Maggie, how you feel about this:
    http://www.towleroad.com/2011/03/nation-more-even

    How does it feel to know the country is changing and you are going to be on the wrong side of history? How does it feel to know that public opinion – your last bastion in this whole fight, since nobody who actually examines the facts actually agrees with you – is eroding against your side?

    Don't you just want to abandon the sinking ship already?

  • 39. Carpool Cookie  |  March 4, 2011 at 2:07 pm

    Mmmm…I think the Flying Spaghetti Monster's colors are primarily red and white…though I'm not one of Its disciples. A red velvet cake with cream cheese frosting might be ideal.

    I really don't want to read that brief again (!!) but I can't quite grasp what their "worst case scenario" is. They mention being afraid they'll have to offer couples counseling to same sex military couples (?) Or they'll have to halt the fire and brimstone speeches damning LGBTs to eternal hellfire (?)

    If they're afraid they'll have to desert the troops over some conflict like this, and they have followers who absolutely NEED holy communion or something every Sunday and can't get off base, perhaps they might counsel these soldiers that a rather restrictive employer like the U.S. Military MIGHT not be for them.

  • 40. Carpool Cookie  |  March 4, 2011 at 2:10 pm

    Also, a religious lifestyle is a CHOICE.

  • 41. Maggie  |  March 4, 2011 at 2:13 pm

    What? Well that is just WRONG on so many levels. That is not equality under the constitution as I know it. They BOTH should be discharged!

  • 42. AnonyGrl  |  March 4, 2011 at 2:15 pm

    Maggie,

    I have to ask. Are you posting over here because no one is reading it over there?

  • 43. Carpool Cookie  |  March 4, 2011 at 2:30 pm

    Just as a refresher…….to BOLD a word or sentence, you put carets (is that the word?) (They look like this ) around the letter b before the first word to be emboldened…..then the carets again at the end of the section, with the marks backslash and b inside them.

    Substitute the letter i for the letter b for ITALICS

    I think you could also go whole hog and combine both, by putting the "i" and the "b" in separate carets before and after, using the backslash as applicable at the end.

    So the markings would be (taking out all the dots I'm using for separating): 'algebraic less-than' symbol…i…'greater than' symbol…'less-than' symbol…b…'greater than' symbol… WHATEVER TEXT YOU WANT…'less-than' symbol…backslash…b…'greater than' symbol…'less than' symbol…backslash…i…'greater-than' symbol

    It should look like this?

    (Keep asprin or advil at hand) (because if you get too fancy it all goes crazy and can even send the whole board into the dreaded Italicsland.)

  • 44. Maggie  |  March 4, 2011 at 2:37 pm

    http://towleroad.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c730253e

    You people have to draw a phallus everywhere. That is not only morally wrong, it is disgusting.

  • 45. Carpool Cookie  |  March 4, 2011 at 2:38 pm

    Ooops….see, in the first paragraph, between the parenthesis, where I said "They look like this," the system though when I typed (taking out the dots, which I'm adding TO GET AROUND IT) there:….<……>……that I was giving an INVISIBLE COMMAND, and made those caret marks (or whatever they're properly called) disappear.

    Wow. I feel like a diety.

  • 46. DaveP  |  March 4, 2011 at 2:45 pm

    Succinct and right outta the park, Owen! Well said.

  • 47. Carpool Cookie  |  March 4, 2011 at 2:46 pm

    Maybe Maggie talks in terms of a "black church" because her mind is still back in the segregation era….where her people kept everyone separate?

  • 48. Carpool Cookie  |  March 4, 2011 at 2:51 pm

    Who are"you people"? The posters at this site are gay, straight, lesbian, bi, trans, celibate…maybe even asexual.

    Who are "you people"?

  • 49. Carpool Cookie  |  March 4, 2011 at 2:59 pm

    Or by "you people", do you mean those of a particular faith? Because we have all groups represented here, I believe…including LDS.

    I don't know who you mean by "you people".

  • 50. Carpool Cookie  |  March 4, 2011 at 3:06 pm

    Maggie, in welcoming you here, I would also invite you to get an avatar to go with your account. There's a way to upload one to a site called "gravatar", and then sign in using that same email address you enrolled there. (Just get a free yahoo — or whatever — account that you only want associated with that avatar.)

    We have so many different people here I always hope people will do what they can to help some of us keep all the posters and their comments identified at a glance.

    For everyone here who has so far refused to get an avatar…why are you holding yourself back? Just to torture me??? BE ALL THAT YOU CAN BE!

  • 51. Mark M (Seattle)  |  March 4, 2011 at 3:07 pm

    What exactly do you think they did wrong Mags?
    In your own words, please enlighten us on what was so wrong with two young men falling asleep in the same bed….in a non sexual situation mind you.

  • 52. Rhie  |  March 4, 2011 at 3:25 pm

    Because sleeping is a homosexual activity now?

  • 53. Rhie  |  March 4, 2011 at 3:31 pm

    A phallus is morally wrong? You do know one is needed for heterosexual sex, yes?

    Honestly, it's you who is sex obsessed. I had to look for a minute to see what it was you were talking about. I also have to say that if you think that graph is phallic shaped you really should look at either the real thing or anatomically correct drawings sometime. And have a talk with your mother.

  • 54. Owen  |  March 4, 2011 at 4:24 pm

    oh lol

    "Maggie" is just a troll/fake Maggie Gallagher

    good one? :c

  • 55. Carpool Cookie  |  March 4, 2011 at 4:27 pm

    And….since when is outright discharge the remedy for whatever the claimed transgression was?

    You know, firing gays, lesbians and bis from the military has reduced the numbers. We need all the soldiers we can get. If the military thinks enlisting felons is okay now, I imagine someone who nods off in the wrong place is okay.

    A warning should do. That's what happens in a professional atmosphere.

  • 56. Michelle Evans  |  March 4, 2011 at 4:34 pm

    It's amazing Maggie, how you can find something disgusting about just about anyone or anything. Personally, I enjoy life more than that, and see the beauty in all living things.

  • 57. Michelle Evans  |  March 4, 2011 at 4:42 pm

    In actuality, this graph to me looks like an arrow–pointing right to the future: Equality for all people!!

  • 58. Carpool Cookie  |  March 4, 2011 at 4:57 pm

    Ooops…this should have been in response to brief you kindly linked to, before : (

  • 59. bJason  |  March 4, 2011 at 5:05 pm

    uh oh

  • 60. Carpool Cookie  |  March 4, 2011 at 5:09 pm

    Well….I think it’s weird that the chaplains seem to be pushing for the rights of an invisible entity (“god”) over those of flesh-and-blood persons who’ve put their mortal lives on the line….(?)

  • 61. Carpool Cookie  |  March 4, 2011 at 5:15 pm

    Whoever she is, posts like hers are good for the record. Because you'll get this 1 lame little yip, then a series of rational posts in response.

    I hope she comes back : )

  • 62. JonT  |  March 4, 2011 at 5:28 pm

    'Who are”you people“?'

    You know CC, "them". With these people, there always has to be a "them". Be it black, muslim, gay, female, whatever.

    You know, "THEM". The evil ones that must be extinguished at all cost. These people NEED a "them". They cannot survive without one.

    :)

    PS: Whoever this "maggie" is, it isn't Maggie G. Just a troll on a roll. FYI: :)

  • 63. Maggie  |  March 4, 2011 at 5:35 pm

    Maryland needed twelve votes to pass the gay marriage bill out of committee. Del. Sam Arora (D.-Silver Spring) who favored gay marriage before he opposed gay marriage, folded under pressure and said he was going to vote for gay marriage “in order to get it to the people.”

    Sorry Sam, you didn’t vote to refer it to the people, you voted for gay marriage.

    Del. Tiffany Alston, God bless her, voted “no” “for my constituents.” Her proposal to do civil unions instead failed 10-10.

    They needed twelve votes to get gay marriage out of committee and so in the end the Chairman of the Committee Joseph Vallario (D-Prince George) who opposes gay marriage, voted “yes.”

    Del. Michael D. Smigiel Sr. (R-Cecil) said he was not surprised.

    “The chairman did what he was told,” Smigiel said. “That’s why he’s chairman.”

    Next stop: a vote on the House floor.

    It’s not clear they have the votes. It’s pretty clear to me, after the outpouring of public opposition, especially from the black church, that if they pass this bill, the people of Maryland will veto it.

  • 64. bJason  |  March 4, 2011 at 9:07 pm

    Thank you!!
    Kathleen gave me excellent instructions. I was just crappy at following them. :)
    I think I've got it now!

  • 65. Sagesse  |  March 4, 2011 at 9:15 pm

    Actually, if I read the article correctly, it wasn't 'we people' who drew the phallus, it was 'we the people'.

  • 66. Straight Dave  |  March 4, 2011 at 10:14 pm

    Be aware that the military has not yet finished its "Leadership, Professionalism, Discipline, Respect" training yet. So apparently those are things they didn't have before??? Or at least aren't being held accountable for them yet.

    Not to diss the military, since I am a vet, and I really do think they are doing a good job with the repeal process and preparation (as opposed to Congress' dilly-dallying). But seriously people, this feels like going out of their way to make trouble or simply to make a point. I hope it silently gets dragged out long enough to become moot when DADT ends. I'm betting Sept, meaning certification in July.

    I mean it would be really stupid if this guy turns right around and reenlists 2 weeks after he's booted out. Why go through all that trouble? The Pentagon knows how to stall if they want to.

  • 67. Ronnie  |  March 4, 2011 at 10:39 pm

    That could most definitely be right on the mark…..<3….Ronnie

  • 68. AgainstSSM  |  March 4, 2011 at 10:54 pm

    Thats just a little misleading there Owen.

    According to the actual poll:
    http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=1920

    "Majorities of the public now support same-sex marriage in the Northeast (59% in favor) and West (56%). In many states in those regions, efforts to legalize same-sex marriage have been underway or have already succeeded. By contrast, support is much lower in the Midwest (40% favor) and the South (34%). "

    Thats hardly what I would call "National Support".

  • 69. Ronnie  |  March 4, 2011 at 11:11 pm

    Really?…..REALLY?……You see a phallus I see an arrow….ok, moving on….."morally wrong"?….says who?…."disgusting"?…subjective….

    Lastly, somebody (The Maggie troll) needs to go back to college & learn about how to make a Line Graph that compares various sides of the spectrum of the subject being studied……Let me type it out slowly for you:

    The….person….plotting….the….statistics….on….the….graph….does….not….control….how….&….where….the….stats…. get….plotted….on….the….graph.

    Ok class dismissed…..not ruled….dismissed….for recess…make sure to eat your phallic shaped banana..it has fiber & protein…mmmmmm…nom, nom, nom, nom

    XP ……Ronnie

  • 70. Ronnie  |  March 4, 2011 at 11:14 pm

    OK Againstfreedom…MAUDE!!!!!! …. (rolls eyes)… 8 / ….Ronnie

  • 71. Ronnie  |  March 4, 2011 at 11:21 pm

    Neither should be discharged. You. Maggie troll, should be slapped with a porcupine….actually, no, that would be abusive to the porcupine….. <3…Ronnie

  • 72. Tasty Salamanders  |  March 4, 2011 at 11:33 pm

    I did try to get one [avatar] once but I keep going in circles due to… some reason… needless to say I gave up and still don't have one.

  • 73. Rich  |  March 4, 2011 at 11:55 pm

    We're getting under her skin.

  • 74. fiona64  |  March 5, 2011 at 12:20 am

    Obvious hate-troll is obvious.

  • 75. fiona64  |  March 5, 2011 at 12:21 am

    Obvious hate-troll is obvious.

    (Just a hint there, sugar .. I wouldn't cite the South as authority on much of anything, what with the KKK and all …)

  • 76. AgainstSSM  |  March 5, 2011 at 12:52 am

    Fine fiona – dont cite the south. We wont mind one bit.

    In the meantime – we'll continue to promote one man/one woman/kids as the correct and right social more for America, and continue to snicker under our hats at those of you who seem to want to equate man/man love as the same as man/woman love.

    And before you ask yes I am a lawyer, and I openly espouse these beliefs.

  • 77. Sagesse  |  March 5, 2011 at 12:58 am

    Count on Gingrich and Huckabee to carry the anti-equality banner into the 2012 Republican primaries.

    Gingrich 2012: Batting or baiting?
    http://www.keennewsservice.com/2011/03/04/gingric

  • 78. Kate  |  March 5, 2011 at 12:59 am

    Now here's a religion I might choose. Cookie, what are YOUR colors?

  • 79. Ronnie  |  March 5, 2011 at 1:00 am

    Ah, another Fascist anti-American, soulless, inhuman, homophobic selfish piece of trash who thinks he/she is superior to people who won't, & by law don't have to, live their lives how he/she demands according to his/her selfish autocratic, anti-America, heterosexist, supremacist, Fascist beliefs & definitions…moving on….. 8 / …..Ronnie

  • 80. Sagesse  |  March 5, 2011 at 1:00 am

    The whole point is they are not discharging him under DADT. However, I can't imagine the officers behind this will come out unscathed. Stupid move.

  • 81. AgainstSSM  |  March 5, 2011 at 1:04 am

    Homophobe – LOL.

    Im not SCARED of you gay boys Ronnie – Id rather squish you under my shoe like the cockroaches you are!

  • 82. Ronnie  |  March 5, 2011 at 1:10 am

    ROFLMGAYAO…."cockroaches"… this coming from a maggot like you….HA!!!!!…..Homophobe doesn't mean "scared" you benighted troglodyte…. 8 / …..Ronnie

  • 83. AgainstSSM  |  March 5, 2011 at 1:21 am

    Come down here to Georgia and say that to my face.

    Ill buy the plane ticket.

  • 84. AgainstSSM  |  March 5, 2011 at 1:33 am

    And by the way – a phobia is an irrational fear.

    Why do you go outside and play, drama queer!

  • 85. Lesbians Love Boies  |  March 5, 2011 at 1:42 am

    This is quite a funny thread. I really needed a good laugh today. Have fun. Don't beat up too much on AgainstSSM though, it's what he/she believes. Keep it civil.

    And, AgainstSSM, day-by-day-by-day the margin of individual voters in favor of Marriage Equality rises. It doesn't matter what any poll says today — one day Marriage Equality will be a reality in every state.

    That is a reality.

  • 86. Ronnie  |  March 5, 2011 at 1:48 am

    LOL….I have said it to people's face & I would not hesitate to say it to yours….moving on

    "a phobia is an irrational fear"

    The intellectual capability of defining a word & breaking down a definition by being proficient at comprehending the definitions & connotations of sub-words used to elucidate the word being used & interpret the phrase analytically in which said word was used is something all people should have learned in 12th grade English.

    Homophobia http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homopho

    noun: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals — ho·mo·pho·bic adjective

    1st: A word is more then just its prefix & suffix. A prefix is a transitive verb that is added to the beginning of a word. In this case the word "Homo" is a prefix to the word "Phobia". "Homo" meaning : any of a genus (Homo) of hominids that includes modern humans (H. sapiens) & several extinct related species (asH. erectus and H. habilis) or in the case of how the prefix is used referring to the scientific created term "Homosexual" meaning: of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex. Now onto the suffix which is an affix occurring at the end of a word, base, or phrase. In this case the suffix is "Phobia" which means: an exaggerated usually inexplicable and illogical fear of a particular object, class of objects, or situation.

    2nd: Now that we got the basics out of the way, let's move onto the words used in the definition for "Homophobia".

    1) "irrational" meaning: not endowed with reason or understanding (2) :lacking usual or normal mental clarity or coherence.

    2) "fear" an unpleasant emotion caused by the belief that someone or something is dangerous, likely to cause pain, or a threat. a mixed feeling of dread and reverence.

    3) "aversion" a strong dislike or disinclination.

    4) "discrimination" the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, esp. on the grounds of race, age, or sex.

    5) "against" in opposition to

    6) "homosexuality or homosexuals" involving or characterized by sexual attraction between people of the same sex

    Anti-Equality schlock's like you, are afraid or have an irrational *FEAR* of marriage & society being destroyed if homosexuals get married. You have an irrational aversion to seeing, reading about, hearing about, & allowing 2men or 2women (homosexuals) to get married & form a family despite it being none of your business & you have no say in the matter in terms of other people's personal lives. Not allowing us to marry (a federal right issued by the same federal government we pay our hard earned money into) the one we love while heterosexuals are allowed to is discrimination.

    Why don't you go outside and play, Drama Quack!

    8 / …..Ronnie

  • 87. Steve  |  March 5, 2011 at 2:13 am

    As long as its tasty His Noodliness will be pleased. He isn't that hung up on details

  • 88. Steve  |  March 5, 2011 at 2:18 am

    So, you're now saying that you don't like dick? That unhealthy repression would explain some things…

  • 89. AgainstSSM  |  March 5, 2011 at 2:22 am

    "Anti-Equality schlock’s like you"

    Im not anti-equality; In fact as a man you have exactly the same rights as me to marriage today, which is the same as every other man in America. How is that anti-equality?

    I just dont believe (based on my 20+ years of practicing law) that the 14th amendment gives you the right to marry anyone you please.

    And I believe that when the issue reaches the Supreme Court and ALL of the states file their amici briefs, that SSM will not be upheld as being permitted under the US Constitution.

    And luckily I will be writing an amici brief at the Supreme Court level.

  • 90. Ronnie  |  March 5, 2011 at 2:39 am

    Oooooo…the quintessential "you have the same rights as I do" bullshite uneducated homophobic heterosexest talking point …….

    You have the right to marry the person you fall in love with….I don't.

    You are anti-eqaulity….I am not a heterosexual male I am a homosexual male so there is NO rational or logical purpose for me to marry a female, you uneducated piece of trash.

    "I just dont believe (based on my 20+ years of practicing law) that the 14th amendment gives you the right to marry anyone you please."

    Funny, they said the same thing during the interracial marriage movement…In fact, besides the lawyer part, My Grandmother said they same thing to my mother when she ran of with a black man…..

    Right, you're a lawyer. yet you are fundamentally incapable of comprehending the definition & connotations of the word "homophobic"…….

    You are just a Fascist benighted troglodyte troll running you unmitigated anti-American, inhuman, soulless mouth off…..

    MAUDE!!!!!….. 8 / ….Ronnie

  • 91. fiona64  |  March 5, 2011 at 3:07 am

    With a surname like Gallagher, you'd think Maggie would be much more sensitive to segregation issues.

    NINA – No Irish Need Apply – was the rule of the day not so long ago in this country's history.

    Love,
    Fiona

  • 92. fiona64  |  March 5, 2011 at 3:10 am

    So, AgainstSSM, here's my question. I'm straight, married and childfree. Are you against my marriage as well, since you specify man/woman/kids as correct? How about marriages between the infertile or post-fertile? Or are you limiting your bigotry only to gay couples — many of whom adopt kids thrown away by their (straight) biological parents because they don't want to deal with special needs issues.

    BTW, I do not believe for one second that you are a lawyer. This is the internet, where you can claim to be anything you want to be.

    Today, I'm a prima ballerina. Tomorrow, I think I'll be an astronaut.

    You? Will continue to be a bigot, no matter what career you pretend to have here in cyberspace.

    Y'all come back now.

    Or not.

    Bless your heart.

  • 93. AgainstSSM  |  March 5, 2011 at 3:11 am

    "You have the right to marry the person you fall in love with….I don’t."

    Thats not true. You can marry anyone you want, just like me.

    What you want is *government recognition* of a same sex marriage, which the government has chosen (by people you and I elected to decide the issue) not to give.

    The only question here is can the government recognize certain marriages under the 14th amendment and not recognize others?

    Clearly the answer is yes. Congress can draw lines. They have the power under the Constitution to do so.

  • 94. John D  |  March 5, 2011 at 3:12 am

    Angle brackets. A caret it a ^.

  • 95. fiona64  |  March 5, 2011 at 3:12 am

    AgainstSSM wrote: Im not SCARED of you gay boys Ronnie – Id rather squish you under my shoe like the cockroaches you are!

    Everyone, please open your hymnals to #22 and sing along:

    "And they will know we are Christians by our love, by our love; they will know we are Christians by our love."

    Today's sermon subject is "Fake lawyers who threaten gaybashing on the Internet."

  • 96. AgainstSSM  |  March 5, 2011 at 3:22 am

    Fiona dear – I dont really give a flying flip if you think I am a lawyer or not.

    My clients on the other hand do care, and they are the ones I care about, including the State of Georgia.

  • 97. Ronnie  |  March 5, 2011 at 3:24 am

    "Thats not true. You can marry anyone you want, just like me."

    I'll repeat for you, you ignorant troglodyte:

    You have the right to marry the person you fall in love with….I don’t.

    I am not a heterosexual male I am a homosexual male so there is NO rational or logical purpose for me to marry a female. I WILL NEVER FALL IN LOVE WITH A FEMALE.

    "You can marry anyone you want"….Then I can marry a man….moving on….(rolls eyes)….. 8 / …..Ronnie

  • 98. AgainstSSM  |  March 5, 2011 at 3:35 am

    "You have the right to marry the person you fall in love with….I don’t."

    Show me any law that specifically says: "A man may not marry another man".

    I defy you.

  • 99. fiona64  |  March 5, 2011 at 3:36 am

    Hey, FakeLawyer: why no answer to my question?

    Ronnie, you know why FakeLawyer has his knickers in a twist, right? Remember, scratch a homophobe and a misogynist bleeds.

    He obviously doesn't like "uppity wimmen" any more than he likes gay men. Why? Because he's afraid some gay guy will do to him what he likes to do to "uppity wimmen."

    And, lest we forget, since FakeLawyer brought up the great State of Georgia: University of Georgia is where the studies were done that demonstrate a fascinating fact. The loudest, most blatant homophobes are the closet cases.
    http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_fuel2.htm

    Quote: The researchers concluded that these data are consistent with the belief that most homophobic men have repressed homosexual desires.

    Hmmm.

  • 100. fiona64  |  March 5, 2011 at 3:39 am

    Hey, FakeLawyer? That question you asked of Ronnie, about a law against same-sex marriage?

    If you were really a lawyer and could, you know, read, you would know that this board is about Proposition 8.

    That would be the law that *removed the right of same-sex couples to marry."

    Look it up.

    Then, answer my question: if your position is that same-sex couples shouldn't be allowed to marry because they can't breed, why aren't you campaigning for fertility requirements for straight couples?

    Oh, wait.

    I know the answer: because you're a bigoted, homophobic, misogynistic asshat.

    Bless your heart.

  • 101. AgainstSSM  |  March 5, 2011 at 3:41 am

    Fiona – there is no point in answering a futile question.

  • 102. Ronnie  |  March 5, 2011 at 3:42 am

    ROFLMGAYAO….Fiona, he's a lawyer that doesn't realize that he is using an oxyMORON

    Hey Fiona, I wonder what neanderthal Georgians are paying this unlettered FOOL to represent them?

    The state of Georgia?….LOL…the state of Georgia includes Straight Ally Georgia tax paying residents & LGBT tax paying Georgia residents of ALL faiths, races, & genders in which the 1st & 14th amendments apply to them also because they are tax paying American citizens. The anti-gay heterosexuals are not superior to the aforementioned. NOWHERE does it say we the heterosexual anti-gay people…..It says "We the people"….there is no "i" in Georgia….wait?!…..lets try this again….there is no "i" in America….wait?!…..one more time….there is no "i" in United……damn it….. X P …..Ronnie

  • 103. bJason  |  March 5, 2011 at 3:43 am

    The south lagged behind in the approval of desegregation, women's rights and interracial marriages as well. Those happened anyway. The same will be the case with marriage equality. There are lots of us here (I, too, am in Georgia) working to make it happen. Don't fret, A-SSm, the sky will not fall.

  • 104. AgainstSSM  |  March 5, 2011 at 3:43 am

    "That would be the law that *removed the right of same-sex couples to marry.” "

    Bullshite.

    It doesnt say that a same sex couple cant marry. It says that the government will not *recognize* a marriage of a same sex couple.

    BIG difference.

  • 105. fiona64  |  March 5, 2011 at 3:44 am

    You aren't answering the question because you *can't.*

    The only reason you have for being against gay marriage has nothing to do with breeding, or you would be against marriage for the infertile as well.

    You don't want GLBT people to have equal protection under the law because you, personally, think that they are icky.

    We get it.

    Now, which of YOUR civil rights shall we put on the ballot to see if people want to remove them because they think YOU are icky? That's the slippery slope, FakeLawyer.

    Think about it (if you're capable).

  • 106. Ronnie  |  March 5, 2011 at 3:44 am

    "Show me any law that specifically says: “A man may not marry another man”."

    Wow, you really are that dense…moving on…(rolls eyes).. 8 / …Ronnie

  • 107. fiona64  |  March 5, 2011 at 3:47 am

    Nope, FakeLawyer. It's not bullshite: http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_

    Quote: "Eliminates the right of same-sex couples to marry."

    A right was taken away from people who were enjoying it — law-abiding people, I hasten to point out.

    Convicted straight felons are allowed to marry (they can't procreate). Convicted straight child molestors (which is the majority of pedophiles btw — straight men) are allowed to marry.

    But law-abiding gay couples can't now.

    How ridiculous.

  • 108. Straight Dave  |  March 5, 2011 at 3:55 am

    @AgainstSSM

    Then you're a very poor and/or sloppy lawyer. You would never write an amici brief as you claim, at least not on your own behalf, nor on behalf of the State of Georgia. You would write an amicus brief. Did I pass, Kathleen, Ann S, et al? IANAL, but at least I took Latin.

  • 109. fiona64  |  March 5, 2011 at 4:04 am

    BradK, you definitely paid attention in Latin class. I'm sorry I didn't catch that myself, LOL.

    Yeah, so much for actually being a lawyer … since he doesn't even know the correct term for an amicus brief (which, BTW, one does not have to be a lawyer to write, so long as one follows the proper formatting rules).

    http://www.techlawjournal.com/glossary/legal/amic

    Love,
    Fiona

  • 110. fiona64  |  March 5, 2011 at 4:05 am

    Oops — BradK may well have taken Latin, but I should have addressed my comment to StraightDave.

    Mea culpa. ;->

    F.

  • 111. AgainstSSM  |  March 5, 2011 at 4:13 am

    "Then you’re a very poor and/or sloppy lawyer. You would never write an amici brief as you claim, at least not on your own behalf, nor on behalf of the State of Georgia. You would write an amicus brief"

    Amicus – one

    Amici – many

    When you write a brief on behalf of ONE it is an amicus curiae brief.

    When you write a brief on behalf of MANY it is the brief of the amici curiae.

    Next.

  • 112. AgainstSSM  |  March 5, 2011 at 4:15 am

    Heres an example of an amici brief:
    http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/201

  • 113. fiona64  |  March 5, 2011 at 4:18 am

    Nice try. It's an amicus brief (says so, right on the link you provided).

    Buh-bye, fake lawyer, buh-bye.

  • 114. fiona64  |  March 5, 2011 at 4:20 am

    bJason, I'm guessing our fake lawyer friend is also mad over the outcome of the War of Northern Aggression. ;->

    Glad you're here, my friend.

    Love,
    Fiona

  • 115. fiona64  |  March 5, 2011 at 4:25 am

    For our FakeLawyer and Maggie "Shoeless Jo" Gallagher:

    “The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty,and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.” — Justice Robert H. Jackson, West Virginia Board of Education vs. Barnette, 319 US 624-1943

    In Loving v. Virginia, the US Supreme Court cited marriage as a basic civil right. Just sayin' …

    The anti-equality rhetoric we see from FakeLawyer, ShoelessJo et al. is identical to the anti-miscegenation rhetoric of a generation ago.

    Boy, are they going to be embarrassed to be on the same side of history as the Nazis and the KKK.

    Love,
    Fiona

  • 116. Sheryl Carver  |  March 5, 2011 at 4:35 am

    Thanks for the info, John C.

    That makes sense, for even though federal level legislation affects all citizens, a senator or representative has to answer to the people in their state/district. Hopefully, they keep in mind the both the Constitution and the welfare of the whole country, but ultimately they must please their constituents if they want to continue in politics. And given the way our government is structured, that is as it should be.

  • 117. Sheryl Carver  |  March 5, 2011 at 4:41 am

    You do! Yeah, bJason!

  • 118. bJason  |  March 5, 2011 at 4:46 am

    Hello, love!!

    I feel certain that animosity MUST be there on that front. Evil yankees!

    Gush mode warning:
    I don't think that enough love is slathered on our allies. The LGBT struggle will be won but only because of those such as you. I cannot thank you enough.

    That you're glad I'm here makes me tingle. That you called me friend means the world!

    <3 Jason, seriously!

  • 119. Straight Dave  |  March 5, 2011 at 4:47 am

    This is apparently getting too complicated for AgainstSSM. His/her exact quote is I will be writing an amici brief at the Supreme Court level.

    A group of people being represented may indeed be collectively called amici. But the brief, itself, is still officially known as an amicus brief , regardless of the number of parties involved.

    Try and Google "amici brief". Its response is "Did you mean: amicus brief". Out of the whole goddamn planet, Google couldn't find one single reference to the phrase "amici brief", except in AgainstSSM's own head.

  • 120. bJason  |  March 5, 2011 at 4:48 am

    If Amicus is singular and Amici is plural – shouldn't it be "Here's an example of an amiCUS brief"?

    Just asking. I didn't take latin.

  • 121. Sheryl Carver  |  March 5, 2011 at 4:52 am

    Once again, great catch, Kathleen.

    I don't visit many of the anti-equality sites, but the ones I have checked out all have moderators to make sure their readers never have to be exposed to opposing viewpoints. Or even worse, FACTS instead of the lies that so frequently get posted there.

    I could understand if they just eliminated profanity, etc, but like other P8TTers I have tried to post comments that only presented different information, without any nastiness, & not-so-amazingly none of my comments ever saw the light of day.

    NOM et al treat their readers like mushrooms – keep'em in the dark & feed'em (you know what).

  • 122. Steve  |  March 5, 2011 at 4:58 am

    He is trying to argue that gay people can just have commitment ceremony and that the government simply doesn't recognize that.

    Which is BS of course. A straight commitment ceremony isn't recognized either. Simply because the couple doesn't have a marriage license. If a gay couple went to city hall to get a license they don't say "I'll oversee your ceremony. We just won't recognize it". They just send the couple away

  • 123. fiona64  |  March 5, 2011 at 4:58 am

    Okay, now I'm all blushing and stuff.

    Time to do a pirouette. :-)

    Love,
    Fiona

  • 124. Sheryl Carver  |  March 5, 2011 at 5:16 am

    Sorry – a little late to this party …

    AgainstSSM wrote (bolding mine): "And before you ask yes I am a lawyer, and I openly espouse these beliefs."

    Guess his/her definition of openly is a bit different than that of most people's. How open is hiding behind an alias?

    And before you start, given the lack of legal protections for LGBTs, most of the posters here would be risking their livelihoods/housing/etc, not to mention physical harm, if they used their real names. If you're so open as you claim, what's your reason, AgainstSSM?

  • 125. bJason  |  March 5, 2011 at 5:18 am

    Time to do a pirouette

    … reminds me – when I was in high school I spent a good deal of time at my grandmother's. She had a badminton net in her back yard. Playing was fun but my uncle and I (oh yes, he is also gay) used to entertain ourselves and our onlookers by playing "ballet badminton". What a riot!!

  • 126. bJason  |  March 5, 2011 at 5:26 am

    Hi Straight Dave, Steve and Sheryl!

    I'm so glad I stopped in today!

  • 127. AnonyGrl  |  March 5, 2011 at 5:31 am

    RAmen.

  • 128. Tigger  |  March 5, 2011 at 5:39 am

    No doubt. Kathleen is such a great source of so much info. Much appreciated!!

  • 129. Richard A. Jernigan  |  March 5, 2011 at 5:44 am

    Actually, Maggie dear, the fact that even one of them is being discharged is unconstitutional. Both of these men should be allowed to finish out their careers and this case should be dismissed for lack of evidence! And you are so sick and disgusting in your prurient obsession with sex! What's the matter, Maggie, aren't you getting any at home?

  • 130. bJason  |  March 5, 2011 at 5:45 am

    Agreed!!

  • 131. Richard A. Jernigan  |  March 5, 2011 at 5:46 am

    Only you, Maggie, could look at a line graph that shows the results of legitimate polls over time, and see a phallus. Again, I ask, why are you so obsessed with sex that you see phallic symbols everywhere? Are you not getting any phallus at home? Do you not have conjugal visits when you go up the street to Sing Sing?

  • 132. fiona64  |  March 5, 2011 at 5:49 am

    I think that more sports should incorporate ballet. Ballet badminton sounds like a hoot. :-)

    Plie and up, releve and down.

    Love,
    Fiona

  • 133. bJason  |  March 5, 2011 at 6:14 am

    It was a complete hoot. He is so much fun. We are so silly together.

    Our Wonder-twin Drag names are Tipsy Butterfinger (me) and Topsy Gobstopper.

  • 134. Rhie  |  March 5, 2011 at 6:54 am

    I sincerely hope he runs. The Democrats could run an actual donkey and win in a landslide.

  • 135. Rhie  |  March 5, 2011 at 7:06 am

    That sounds like an absolute blast! :)

  • 136. Mark M (Seattle)  |  March 5, 2011 at 7:19 am

    I'm going to go and engage in homosexual activity…and take a nap :-)

  • 137. Carpool Cookie  |  March 5, 2011 at 7:54 am

    Oh, Angle brackets! Thank you!

    They sound very hardware-ish : )

    Kate – my favorite colors are white, cream and pale green. Let us build this church! If Westboro gets tax exemption, why not us?

  • 138. Carpool Cookie  |  March 5, 2011 at 7:57 am

    It's awesome! You're being so bold!

    Yay for Jason!

  • 139. Carpool Cookie  |  March 5, 2011 at 8:09 am

    Maybe I can do a guest entry on Finding (and Posting) Your Inner Avatar soon?

    There are so many lost and faceless posters among our flock.

  • 140. AnonyGrl  |  March 5, 2011 at 8:11 am

    You find a phallus disgusting? Are you, perhaps, a lesbian? :)

  • 141. AgainstSSM  |  March 5, 2011 at 9:52 am

    "In Loving v. Virginia, the US Supreme Court cited marriage as a basic civil right. Just sayin’ …"

    Hernandez v. Robles, New York Court of Appeals:

    "But the historical background of Loving is different from the history underlying this case. Racism has been recognized for centuries—at first by a few people, and later by many more—as a revolting moral evil. This country fought a civil war to eliminate racism's worst manifestation, slavery, and passed three constitutional amendments to eliminate that curse and its vestiges. Loving was part of the civil rights revolution of the 1950's and 1960's, the triumph of a cause for which many heroes and many ordinary people had struggled since our nation began.

    "But the traditional definition of marriage is not merely a by-product of historical injustice. Its history is of a different kind. The idea that same-sex marriage is even possible is a relatively new one. Until a few decades ago, it was an accepted truth for almost everyone who ever lived, in any society in which marriage existed, that there could be marriages only between participants of different sex. A court should not lightly conclude that everyone who held this belief was irrational, ignorant or bigoted. We do not so conclude."

  • 142. Ronnie  |  March 5, 2011 at 10:04 am

    Your credibility has been shot faster the Kenny on South Park…..moving on….

    “I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people’s civil rights.”…….

    “I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight, seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about.” ~ Mildred Loving, Loving v. Virgina
    http://www.dallasvoice.com/mildred-loving-becomes

    MAUDE!!!… 8 / ….Ronnie

  • 143. Richard A. Jernigan  |  March 5, 2011 at 2:10 pm

    @ AgainstSSM: If you so openly espouse those beliefs, why are you hiding under an assumed handle. I have more to fear from people like you, Maggie, Brian, Lousi, Tony Perkins and his hate group, and others like you and those who are incited to violence against LGBT's because of your hate-filled, bigoted, unfounded comments than you have to fear from us! So be an adult and use your real name. I use mine!

  • 144. Richard A. Jernigan  |  March 5, 2011 at 2:16 pm

    @ Against SSM: You pay for the gas and tell me what law office, and my husband and I will be there with bells on! And trust me, you really do not want two gay Jews to show up at your law office!

  • 145. Richard A. Jernigan  |  March 5, 2011 at 2:42 pm

    If Gingrich runs, the Democrats won't have to run an actual donkey, because the Republicans will be running one!

  • 146. Mark M (Seattle)  |  March 5, 2011 at 2:56 pm

    At least part of one :-)
    Ass of an ass

  • 147. Rhie  |  March 5, 2011 at 3:31 pm

    Hehe you and Mark are awful! :)

  • 148. Richard A. Jernigan  |  March 5, 2011 at 3:40 pm

    If that is the case, then you really need to explain to me why in talking with David, King Saul, in referring to David's relationships with Saul's daughter, Michal, and Saul's son, Jonathan, told David that he (Saul) was his (David's) father-in-law in twain (twice over). Saul, by that very comment was expressing the fact that David was in fact married to Michal and Jonathan at the same time.
    And don't even get me started on Ruth and Naomi, especially the bridal vow of Whither thou goest, I shall go. thy people shall be my people and thy G-d shall be my G-d. Look it up.
    And by the way, I have a rather handy reference for anything dealing with the ancient manuscripts. My husband is a Lubavitcher rabbi. Hebrew, Aramaic, Chaldean, and Yiddish are spoken in our home along with English. And I have myself studied the mistranslations, misinterpretations, redactions, misquotings and other abominations committed against the Holy Torah by others or your ilk down through history, beginning in the time of Saul of Tarsus and including King (Queen) James of England.

  • 149. AgainstSSM  |  March 5, 2011 at 7:41 pm

    1 Samuel:

    "17 Saul said to David, “Here is my older daughter Merab. I will give her to you in marriage; only serve me bravely and fight the battles of the LORD.” For Saul said to himself, “I will not raise a hand against him. Let the Philistines do that!”

    18 But David said to Saul, “Who am I, and what is my family or my clan in Israel, that I should become the king’s son-in-law?” 19 So when the time came for Merab, Saul’s daughter, to be given to David, she was given in marriage to Adriel of Meholah.

    20 Now Saul’s daughter Michal was in love with David, and when they told Saul about it, he was pleased. 21 “I will give her to him,” he thought, “so that she may be a snare to him and so that the hand of the Philistines may be against him.” So Saul said to David, “Now you have a second opportunity to become my son-in-law.”

    So the "twain" does not refer to Jonathan and Michal, it refers to Merab and Michal, Saul's two daughters.

  • 150. AgainstSSM  |  March 5, 2011 at 7:49 pm

    Sorry – that should be 1 Samuel 18:17-21.

  • 151. Ronnie  |  March 5, 2011 at 11:34 pm

    Prove it!?……Just saying….. 8 / ….Ronnie

  • 152. AgainstSSM  |  March 5, 2011 at 11:50 pm

    "The Bible and Homosexual Practice. Texts and Hermeneutics (Nashville, Abingdon Press, 2001), pp. 146-154"

    will tell you everything you need to know.

  • 153. Kate  |  March 6, 2011 at 12:01 am

    Your bible proves everything the way my copy of The Night Before Christmas proves the existence of Santa Claus.

  • 154. Ronnie  |  March 6, 2011 at 12:02 am

    No, actually it won't….the Bible is a book of fairy tales written & rewritten over & over & over &over again by man…. NONE of it is fact……so any book written about what the Bible says is speculation, & an interpretation……. not to mention….it is irrelevant….The Bible is NOT the law….& by law, NOBODY has to adhere to it……ok moving on….. 8 / ….Ronnie

  • 155. AgainstSSM  |  March 6, 2011 at 12:17 am

    "The Bible is NOT the law….& by law, NOBODY has to adhere to it"

    Correct – but the law is in fact based on the Bible.

    As John Adams said:

    "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and true religion. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

  • 156. Ronnie  |  March 6, 2011 at 12:19 am

    Second….there is no such thing as "Homosexual Practice"…..It is not a sport or a instrument. It is not something you study or a business you a part of. It is not a belief system that you adhere to. It is not a project started by someone named Rachel to do her own version of "Julia & Julia" calling it "Rachel & Rachael", a year long journey to cook all of Racael Ray's recipes.

    For a lawyer, you really don't seem to know the law very well & how your religious tenets are not the law & the government cannot force us to or demand that we adhere to them….Also you don't really know how to use words correctly…..you religious right sociopaths never do….Nice try though….moving on…. 8 / ….Ronnie

  • 157. Ronnie  |  March 6, 2011 at 12:20 am

    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." ~ First Amendment

    ok…moving on…. 8 / …Ronnie

  • 158. Ronnie  |  March 6, 2011 at 12:24 am

    "As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion." ~ Treaty Of Tripoli, Article 11

    ok…moving on…. 8 / ….Ronnie

  • 159. Ronnie  |  March 6, 2011 at 12:27 am

    "I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature."

    "Religions are all alike – founded upon fables and mythologies."

    "Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burned, tortured, fined, and imprisoned, yet we have not advanced one inch toward uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half of the world fools and the other half hypocrites."

    "History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes"

    "In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own"

    ~ Thomas Jefferson

    ok…moving on…..<3….Ronnie

  • 160. Ronnie  |  March 6, 2011 at 12:29 am

    "In no instance have . . . the churches been guardians of the liberties of the people."

    "Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise."

    ~ James Madison

    ok…moving on…. 8 / ….Ronnie

  • 161. Sheryl Carver  |  March 6, 2011 at 12:36 am

    Game, set, & match to Ronnie!

    (Not that there was ever a doubt. The truth may get hidden, trampled, & abused by those who prefer lies, but eventually its champions WILL prevail.)

  • 162. Ronnie  |  March 6, 2011 at 12:38 am

    "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." ~ Benjamin Franklin

    Personally, I would rather live my life according to reason, ration & logic…..faith is subjective & it differs from person to person….faith has been used time & time again to mass murder people, control people, enslave people, torture people….Faith & ALL forms of religion are not rational or logical.

    America was built on FREEDOM…not freedom to live how some homophobic, heterosexist, Fascist PIG demands according to his/her irrational, illogical, selfish, autocratic & theocratic dictatorship beliefs & definitions…..I don't pay taxes to your "God", I don't pay taxes to your church. I don't pay taxes to you religion, & I don't pay taxes to your Bible.

    I am an American Citizen, 7 generation strong….& I will not be controlled by some selfish theocratic tyrants who adhere to one version of Christianity.

    I AM SOMEBODY AND I DESERVE FULL EQUALITY RIGHT HERE RIGHT NOW!!!!!!!…..& not how you demand…..DEAL WITH IT!!!!…. 8 / ….Ronnie

  • 163. Steve  |  March 6, 2011 at 1:41 am

    All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.
    — Thomas Jefferson

    Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.
    — Thomas Jefferson

    All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.
    — Thomas Paine

    Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State.
    — Thomas Jefferson

    Of all the tyrannies that affect mankind, tyranny in religion is the worst.
    — Thomas Paine

    Persecution is not an original feature in any religion; but it is always the strongly marked feature of all religions established by law.
    — Thomas Paine

    I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. […] But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.
    — Thomas Jefferson

    Religion flourishes in greater purity, without than with the aid of Government.
    — James Madison

    "If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the Pagans, but practiced it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England blamed persecution in the Romish church, but practiced it upon the Puritans. These found it wrong in the Bishops, but fell into the same practice themselves both here [England]and in New England"
    — Benjamin Franklin

    "The way to see by Faith is to shut the eye of Reason."
    — Benjamin Franklin

    "When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not care to support it, so that its professors are obliged to call for the help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one."
    — Benjamin Franklin

    There is no maxim, in my opinion, which is more liable to be misapplied, and which, therefore, more needs elucidation, than the current one, that the interest of the majority is the political standard of right and wrong.
    — James Madison

    Plenty more like that where those came from. Unfortunately in some cases they couldn't have been more wrong. They valued reason and knowledge above anything and saw it as the guarantee for liberty. They hoped for an age of enlightenment and to move beyond superstition and especially the religious strife that divided Europe for centuries.

    Turns out that Europe moved on and America regressed.

  • 164. Steve  |  March 6, 2011 at 1:53 am

    And while John Adams was probably the most religious one in that "inner circle" of him, Franklin, Jefferson and Madison, he wasn't a big fan of organized religion either.

    "The question before the human race is, whether the God of nature shall govern the world by his own laws, or whether priests and kings shall rule it by fictitious miracles?"

    "Indeed, Mr. Jefferson, what could be invented to debase the ancient Christianism which Greeks, Romans, Hebrews and Christian factions, above all the Catholics, have not fraudulently imposed upon the public? Miracles after miracles have rolled down in torrents."

    "I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved — the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!"

    "The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. […] It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses."

    ———–
    They all (with the exception of Paine maybe) believed in some sort of god. But they had pretty unconventional beliefs, especially by modern standards. Nothing that could in any way be called orthodox. They made up their own faith, by keeping the good and chucking out all the bad. Believing in a supreme being as a creator of the universe, mostly rejecting the divinity of Jesus, but keeping is ideals. Rejecting the supernatural for the most part. Believing that deeds count more than words. Considering faith a personal matter and not something that belongs into the public.

  • 165. AgainstSSM  |  March 6, 2011 at 2:27 am

    "It's not that liberals aren't smart, it's just that so much of what they know isn't true." – Ronald Reagan

  • 166. Ronnie  |  March 6, 2011 at 3:38 am

    Prove it?!

    "Better to be a liberal then a Fascist" ~ Ronnie Mc

    Antonym for "liberal" is conservative….synonym for "conservative" is Right-wing & socialist……Nazi = a member of the National Socialist German Workers' Party.
    • a member of an organization with similar ideology.
    • derogatory a person who holds and acts brutally in accordance with extreme racist or authoritarian views.

    fascism |ˈfa sh ˌizəm| (also Fascism)
    noun
    an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.
    • (in general use) extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice.

    ok…moving on…. 8 / ….Ronnie

  • 167. Steve  |  March 6, 2011 at 3:54 am

    Reagan would be reviled as a RINO in the current political climate

  • 168. Steve  |  March 6, 2011 at 3:56 am

    The modern Republican party is really pretty much indistinguishable from modern European Nazi and far right parties.

    By European Standards, the Democrats are hardly left. They are center-left to center-right, depending on the issue.

  • 169. Ronnie  |  March 6, 2011 at 4:17 am

    Of course, not all Conservatives are Fascists who have a sick twisted obsession with controlling the personal lives of LGBT people our putting their noses in others people's business like anti-gay conservatives who don't know how to & are fundamentally incapable of minding their own business & keeping their repugnant noses to themselves.

    There are several conservatives who follow this blog & support Equality, American Freedom & LGBT Rights. Megan McCain is conservative & she supports the Freedom to Marry for LGBT couples. So dose Laura Bush, Judge Vaughn Walker, Barbara Bush, & Theodore Olson (lawyer)….as well as several Religious leaders of ALL faiths all across America whose 1st amendment rights are being violated by anti-gay, anti-American, anti-freedom, anti-marriage Fascist schlocks who have an extremely unethical, inhuman, unhealthy & noisome superiority complex.

    The point is this is not about liberal or conservative….This about your anti-American "everybody has to live their lives how I want & demand" side being filled with nothing but soulless, benighted, selfish, arrogant, condescending paps with pretty much no decent human quality what-so-ever.

    ok…moving on…. 8 / ……Ronnie

  • 170. Ronnie  |  March 6, 2011 at 4:53 am

    & considering that your entire world view & lilliputian education revolves around the fairy tales of the Bible….you are not the one that should be talking about "what they know isn’t true", AgainstFreedom…..You didn't know the definition of "homophobic" & just like every other bigoted anti-gay fool, rely on the suffix of a word to define the word in question proving how much of unmitigated MORON you are….You have no idea how the Constitution works, but you are somehow a lawyer….You don't know which words to use "amicus" or "amici", but you are somehow a lawyer….You follow the fallacious & propagated bull espoused by the Religious Reich that some how our country is a Christian Theocratic dictatorship instead of a Secular Society because some of the founding fathers may or may not have been Christian even though the first amendment assures that no religion is more superior to the other. Whether they are LGBT & Straight Ally Christians or Anti-gay Christians is irrelevant, both are protected or supposed to be protected under the 1st amendment but the anti-gay Christians seem to have a selfish issue with that FACT OF LAW!!!

    ok…moving on….. 8 /….Ronnie

  • 171. fiona64  |  March 6, 2011 at 6:45 am

    FakeLawyer said: but the law is in fact based on the Bible.

    This is just further proof that you are a liar. If you were indeed a lawyer, you would know better than this.

    US Law is based on the second of Locke's Two Treatises on Government and English common law.

    If you were indeed a lawyer, you would know that treaties have the force of law in this country. That would mean that you would be aware of the Treaty of Tripoli, which has never been rescinded.

    You would be specifically aware of Article 11 of said treaty:

    Quote: As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;

    If you were indeed a lawyer, you would know that the only mention of religion in the Constitution is in exclusionary terms.

    But you are not, in fact, a lawyer; you're just another bigoted blowhard.

  • 172. AgainstSSM  |  March 6, 2011 at 9:56 am

    "Quote: As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;"

    Yes, but I am also aware of the Convention for Indemnity Under Award of Emperor of Russia as to the True Construction of the First Article of the Treaty of December 24, 1814, which was ratified in 1822.

    The preamble states: “In the name of the Most Holy and Indivisible Trinity.”

    Christianity is the only religion that teaches trinity view of God.

    If the 1797 treaty makes the US secular, I guess the 1822 treaty supersedes it and makes the US a Christian Nation again.

  • 173. Ronnie  |  March 6, 2011 at 10:00 am

    "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;”

    PERIOD…..ok…moving on….. 8 / …Ronnie

  • 174. Ronnie  |  March 6, 2011 at 10:05 am

    The United States was NEVER a Christian Nation….is NOT a Christian Nation….& will NEVER be a Christian Nation….. ok…moving on….. 8 / ….Ronnie

  • 175. Rhie  |  March 6, 2011 at 12:30 pm

    Context for that quote would be that Reagan was a disenchanted ex-liberal. He was bitter toward the Democratic party saying at one point that "they left me".

    Interesting how context changes a meaning of a quote isn't it?

    Not that he has much of a leg to stand on when it comes to truth. We are seeing the long term effects of Reganomics right now in the worst recession to hit America since the 30s. And, oh yea, the long lasting and hard hitting recession of the 80s that didn't really end until Clinton.

    He also increased taxes to fund Medicare and Social Security even though he was against both. His administration left the White House with record budget deficits.

    So he isn't really one to talk about facts and truth.

  • 176. fiona64  |  March 6, 2011 at 11:53 pm

    FakeLawyer isn't concerned with facts and truth.

    Otherwise, he wouldn't be pretending that we live in a theocracy.

    Which reminds me: FakeLawyer, if this is a "Christian nation," why is it that the only mentions of religion in the US Constitution are in exclusionary terms?

    In other words, this is a secular, pluralistic nation. There is no state religion (no matter how much of a wet dream it is for you CINOs). Please show me the law that requires that people be Christian, attend church, etc. Please show me the law that requires people to not covet. Please show me the law against adultery. Please show me the law that requires people to honor their parents.

    Oh, wait. None of those things are matters of statute.

    And if you want to argue about theft and murder? If you were a real lawyer, you would know that laws are about protecting the rights of *victims.* Theft and murder abrogate the rights of the victim to be secure in his/her property and person; that's why they are crimes. Not because someone's concept of God "said" so.

    Really, your fake persona is full of more holes than a good Swiss cheese — and you just keep exposing them. I am embarrassed for you.

  • 177. Mark M. (Seattle)  |  March 7, 2011 at 2:15 am

    But we made you smile I see
    hehehehehehehe

  • 178. Richard A. Jernigan  |  March 7, 2011 at 6:02 am

    Also, why is it that FakeLawyer's freedom of religious expression is valid when he wants to prevent marriage equality, but my husband's freedom of religious expression has to take a backseat? What about those of us whose religious expression is inclusive and supports marriage equality. FakeLawyer refuses to realize that his freedom of religious expression ends where it tramples upon my freedom of religious expression and that of my husband, a trained and ordained Lubavitcher rabbi.

  • 179. fiona64  |  March 7, 2011 at 8:12 am

    FakeLawyer wrote: Christianity is the only religion that teaches trinity view of God.

    I know some Druids who will be fascinated to learn that — especially since Druidry predates Christianity.

    Looks like FakeLawyer doesn't know much about religion *or* the law.

  • 180. Rhie  |  March 9, 2011 at 5:35 am

    Wicca and some other Pagan beliefs have a trinitarian view of the feminine Goddess energy embodied by the Maiden-Mother-Crone.

    Hinduism has a Creator-Sustainer-Destroyer understanding of Brahman, Vishnu, and Shiva.

    And that's from a 30 second Google search. Though I have to say thanks to FakeLawyer/FakeAnthropologist for leading me to look this up. It's really fascinating to learn about other religions!

  • 181. Dave in ME  |  March 11, 2011 at 12:09 pm

    Ha! That's a good point!

  • 182. Lina  |  April 13, 2011 at 8:25 am

    Stands back from the keyborad in amazement! Thanks!

  • 183. Rhie  |  April 13, 2011 at 8:37 am

    Sure :).

  • 184. Colonic&hellip  |  May 11, 2011 at 10:44 am

    Colon Cleanse Reviews…

    […]below you’ll find the link to some sites that we think you should visit[…]…

  • 185. improve eyesight&hellip  |  May 11, 2011 at 10:57 am

    Natural Wellness…

    […]here are some links to sites that we link to because we believe they are worth seeing[…]…

  • 186. Fbwipiwg  |  September 2, 2011 at 10:52 pm

    Could you ask her to call me? head kid shaved mxb

  • 187. Kufmxpji  |  September 3, 2011 at 10:03 pm

    I’d like to send this parcel to young japen porn
    kqbc

  • 188. Dsrarptt  |  September 7, 2011 at 10:59 pm

    I work for a publishers young lolli models
    90357

  • 189. Klvvqocv  |  September 8, 2011 at 7:25 am

    Languages cp bbs young
    20774

  • 190. Rjgjkmnw  |  September 21, 2011 at 12:01 am

    Have you got a current driving licence? Very Little Kid Nymphets vsd

  • 191. Zvctztwe  |  September 22, 2011 at 11:55 pm

    I’m sorry, I didn’t catch your name Cp Tgp Toplist rqm

  • 192. Volunteering abroad  |  February 2, 2012 at 1:11 am

    That's a great thing happening. I support it.

  • 193. India volunteer  |  February 21, 2012 at 9:37 pm

    I support it too.

  • 194. Jwgtnmod  |  April 21, 2012 at 11:22 pm

    I love this site http://www.zoomgroups.com/userProfile/5734855 traffic cyber lolita I hope that all other producers, actors and actresses learn from this video; no fake moans, no fake dialogues, no overacting. The best thing of this video is the love between them and how damn natural they are.
    http://www.zoomgroups.com/userProfile/5735204 lolitas little sluts Most annoying mother fucker. What is with his gay moaning. Sounds like he got the shit beat out of him.
    http://emekyeor.myblazers.com ls bd girls lolita Love that hairy nurse. Wish it was my cock pleasuring her. And the older chick in the garterbelt is hot.
    http://www.netvibes.com/ariolei#Child_Preteenz_Models Child Preteenz Models
    ide love to have her live at my house. have some friends over n say, hey wanna bust a nut go to the back.
    http://uyladorog.mygorillas.com lolitas porn pretty She’s hot, but there is enough space between those tits to fit a third-world country…so it’s definitely not the greatest set of fake tits I’ve ever seen. I still gave it a five star rating because she is a gorgeous woman and a bit of a freak…gotta give due props.

  • 195. Naxjlfks  |  May 2, 2012 at 11:59 pm

    Children with disabilities http://gohalupiqyby.de.tl cp foto bbs This guy is great. What’s his name? He knows how to work it out, he even licked her feet lol.

  • 196. Ljuizkps  |  October 7, 2012 at 3:19 am

    Until August Preteen Nude Toplist
    ‘big cock’ – where was that then, I must have missed it while I was watching that cute little thing in the video
    Lolita Toplist Galleries
    Shitty setting but that has to be one of the hottest woman(not to mention ass) that I have ever seen!
    Preteen Models Toplist
    I’m not into blondes, but her face is perfect. Damn shame money has gotten this guy everything but a respectable cock.
    Toplist Preteen
    Could not understand a word but the sex was hot and would love to me in the middle of these sexy big titty women!
    Young Lolita Toplist
    ich will auch zu dieser verfickten party was ist den das für dünner ekliger typ ? den rachel dort ein lutscht ! ?? ich bitte euch !! ich will auch Rachel in ihren kleinen arsch ficken !!!!

  • 197. Pbbqngyw  |  October 7, 2012 at 3:20 am

    Do you know the number for ? Lolita Toplist Galleries
    I dont get why girls and guys think going down on the girl is nasty now. I think the best-tasting shit on the planet is pussy.
    Lolita Toplists
    get it grandma! i plan on fucking when im gray too,lol and an old man just dosnt have the energy!
    Toplist Preteen
    this is what i call a perfect ass…. no huge, not little, fucking perfect, i just want to fuck that ass and cum over it…
    Cp Lolita
    Glory holes are pretty much a thing of the past. They were in adult movie stores a great deal before the Internet. Now, as Ha says, they are mostly found in swinger clubs, The adult video stores are mostly gone as well, again due to the Internet. The last glory hole I saw and experienced was at a swing club house in California.
    Young Lolita Toplist
    Nina Hartley is the undisputed Grand Dame of Porn and I like this video, the only problem I have is strap ons, I love lesbian sex but when one of them puts on a strap on it emasculates her, and to me its no longer two women and if I want to watch a woman being penetrated, I could watch hetero porn, I am sure others would disagree but it is my opinion.

  • 198. nogood87  |  February 26, 2013 at 10:01 am

    The line’s engaged acai berry weight loss uk free trial 20 M/I Compound Code
    allegra d over the counter coupons on the Elizabeth City State University campus who wish to be placed in the Eastern or Area L
    merck maxalt mlt 10 mg Preceptors workshop will meet this requirement. Additionally, the three schools of pharmacy in North
    furosemide infusion acute renal failure Student uses good critical
    coversyl 8 mg vidal number. For example, an entry for an

  • 199. Natalie  |  February 26, 2013 at 10:12 am

    I enjoy travelling free lolita xxx vids UPDATE: nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nomnom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nomnom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nomnom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nomnom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom nom

  • 200. Ian  |  February 26, 2013 at 10:13 am

    Through friends lolita young russian bbs She knows what she’s doing and how to get it done in a hot sexy way… This babe loves the cock!

  • 201. Mia  |  February 26, 2013 at 10:13 am

    When do you want me to start? japanese lolita lollipop nude omg this is so hot i am sooo wet rubbing my pussy were are all the ladies at hit me soo horny and wet..

  • 202. Ashton  |  April 8, 2013 at 2:31 am

    It’s funny goodluck preteen lolita and top100 You Are Really Sexy

  • 203. Oyowsyel  |  April 9, 2013 at 8:40 pm

    I don’t know what I want to do after university http://community.parents.com/asumouooi/blog/2013/04/04/lolita_kingdom_nude_pics little lolita preteen pics thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you

  • 204. Lgndbxbm  |  April 9, 2013 at 8:41 pm

    We went to university together brook shields lolita pics This is a nice vintage clip. But as in the old days, I had to mute it to keep from gaging at that moron Seymoure’s groaning. Ya might think someone was hammering him up the ass rather than vice versa.

  • 205. Dominic  |  April 9, 2013 at 8:55 pm

    Are you a student? sweet models loli child i love a woman with a little cushion for better pushin! wow she would be a great fuck for sure

  • 206. Valeria  |  April 9, 2013 at 8:58 pm

    A few months underage lolitas having sex Girls want to cam sent me a message

  • 207. Chloe  |  July 21, 2013 at 5:11 pm

    When do you want me to start?

Having technical problems? E-mail equalityontrial AT couragecampaign DOT org for assistance!