Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed

Shortly after low key hearing, federal judge rules that Mobile County must issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples

LGBT Legal Cases Marriage equality Marriage Equality Trials

Today, in a hearing that lasted less than 40 minutes, same-sex couples sought to persuade a federal judge, Callie V.S. Granade to require the Mobile County probate judge to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The couples were technically seeking an injunction preventing the probate judge from enforcing the state’s same-sex marriage ban. Judge Granade had struck down the ban in two previous cases.

The plaintiffs made clear during the hearing that they only sought to extend the existing injunction to the Mobile County Probate judge.

The probate judge did not oppose an injunction, refusing to take a position on whether he should issue the marriage licenses.

Within an hour after the hearing – this reporter was still in the courthouse at the time – the judge granted the request and allowed same-sex marriages to begin in the county.

After the order came down, I called the Mobile County Probate Court:

Since then, photos have begun to come out showing people lining up and finally marrying in Mobile.

Thanks to Equality Case Files for these filings


  • 1. RQO  |  February 12, 2015 at 3:21 pm

    Thank you for this news, Scottie. Justice is seldom swift or sweet, but this is.

  • 2. josejoram  |  February 12, 2015 at 3:22 pm

    What about the rest of counties where probate judges refused to issue licenses?

  • 3. wes228  |  February 12, 2015 at 3:23 pm

    Also, what about counties not in the Southern District? Will couples in counties served by the Northern and Middle District Courts have to start whole separate lawsuits?

  • 4. Raga  |  February 12, 2015 at 3:32 pm

    Yup, and they will go to their respective federal district courts, where I believe federal judges are already sitting on one or two existing cases challenging the constitutionality of Alabama's marriage ban.

  • 5. jdw_karasu  |  February 12, 2015 at 4:00 pm

    Northern District = Aaron-Brush vs Bentley

    This one is largely punted until SCOTUS rules.

    Middle District = Hard vs Strange

    Marriage recognition where the spouse passed away. That one has gotten some news. It's before Judge Watkins, a GWB appointee. The state did recognize the marriage for the death certificate. Probably not going to get a lot of movement beyond that.

  • 6. franklinsewell  |  February 13, 2015 at 9:11 am

    Hard v Strange/Bentley has been resolved, I believe. The death certificate has been revised to list Paul Hard as the surviving spouse.

  • 7. VIRick  |  February 12, 2015 at 6:43 pm

    Raga, No, the state's constitutional amendment and state law banning marriage between same-sex couples has been struck down, and re-affirmed that it has been struck down. This has state-wide implications. One doesn't need to go through any additional federal district court with any further case.

  • 8. Ryan K (a.k.a. KELL)  |  February 12, 2015 at 10:23 pm

    That was my thought exactly. It shouldn't matter if the county is in a specific Federal District Court.

  • 9. Lymis  |  February 13, 2015 at 6:25 am

    Not to get some sort of fresh ruling that the law is unconstitutional, no. but to get specific injunctions and/or relief about specific Probate Judges who are not abiding by the ruling, it may be a different matter.

  • 10. tornado163  |  February 12, 2015 at 3:36 pm

    This whole process is needlessly complicated. Who is in charge of probate judges? The governor? Attorney general? Chief Justice? Whoever it is, why not just add them to the lawsuit and ask for a preliminary injunction for that official to order all probate judges to issue marriage licenses.

  • 11. Pat_V  |  February 12, 2015 at 4:11 pm

    That's something I also really don't understand. Why can't there be a binding order forcing all probate judges to issue licenses?
    This kinda suggests that the first ruling was irrelevant.

  • 12. A_Jayne  |  February 12, 2015 at 4:11 pm

    AFAIK, this was more complicated when this particular (Strawser) lawsuit was originally filed, naming multiple governmental officials as defendants. Then all parties agreed that only AG Luther Strange should be the defendant because he said he could enforce whatever injunction the judge eventually wrote.

    Well, now we see how good his word on that proved to be, as this whole mess has erupted as a result of him lying to the federal district court. I wonder if the court cannot, itself, pursue that issue?

  • 13. RobW303  |  February 12, 2015 at 4:32 pm

    I presume that if a couple is refused, they can sue, requesting punitive damages, since it is now clear that (1) the bans have been struck, not just for pockets of Alabama but state-wide, (2) probate judges CAN be compelled by federal courts to issue licenses, (3) any probate judge now refusing cannot profess to be seeking "clarification" from any source, they are simply in open violation of the law, (4) the litigation process would likely be handled expeditiously, without briefing or a hearing, since no probate judge has any grounds that are different than in Mobile.

    Now, it remains to be litigated whether refusing marriages to ALL couples is within the discretionary powers of a probate judge, since (theoretically) such a policy could prevent any marriages from occurring in Alabama at all. There is also no question that it imposes hardship on citizens without justification. If probate judges don't have to issue licenses, who does??

  • 14. Raga  |  February 12, 2015 at 5:12 pm

    Unfortunately, this would only be true for counties in the Southern District:

    The Northern and Middle District Federal Courts are not bound by Judge Granade's ruling. Judges there are free to disagree and even rule that the ban is constitutional. That is part of the mess this is until the Eleventh Circuit or SCOTUS affirms Judge Granade.

  • 15. VIRick  |  February 12, 2015 at 6:50 pm

    Raga, opponents tried that same argument in Florida (and I've heard rumbling of attempting the same argument in Texas), but Judge Hinkle disagreed with that interpretation, and Judge Granade did a copy-and-paste from Judge Hinkle's "Orders of Clarification." I suspect she will also disagree with you. I know I do.

    She can issue as many "once agains" as necessary until every last probate judge state-wide falls into line. That's what Hinkle implied in his "Orders of Clarification" in Florida. Florida's AG Bondi finally got the message, issued her statement of compliance, and all county clerks did fall into line there. Perhaps eventually AG Strange in Alabama will also get the message that these "once agains" will continue to continue, and finally issue his own state-wide directive instructing compliance, rather than hide under his desk in fear of Roy Moore.

    Point to note: In light of the second clarification order from Judge Granade, issued today, Tuscaloosa County will begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples from tomorrow, Friday, 13 February 2015.

  • 16. Raga  |  February 12, 2015 at 8:25 pm

    Thank you, Rick. Your comment actually made me think more and break down the points further. I am not a lawyer, so I could be wrong – I invite a clarification on the following points from anyone here who knows the law better:

    (1) Jurisdiction: My understanding is that if a couple gets denied a marriage license by a probate judge in a county in the middle district, they can only file suit in the federal district court of the middle district, not the southern district, where Judge Granade is from. The general rules for proper venue are detailed in 28 U.S.C. § 1391. The venue can be transferred, but it is not a matter of right, see 28 U.S.C. § 1404. Interestingly, 28 U.S.C. § 1407 provides that "when civil actions involving one or more common questions of fact are pending in different districts, such actions may be transferred to any district for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings." However, the procedure that is laid out for this is highly complicated, and involves, among other things, a so-called seven-member "judicial panel on multidistrict litigation" that is designated by the Chief Justice of the United States.

    (2) Horizontal Stare Decisis: Then, the question becomes – does Judge Granade's declaratory judgment on the constitutionality of Alabama's marriage ban bind other district courts? Unfortunately, while the principle of comity would suggest some deference to her opinion, it doesn't mandate binding precedent. The Eleventh Circuit has held that a district court judge is not bound by a previous opinion from a judge in the same district court, much less a sister-district-court in the same state. Quoting from Fishman: "It should be noted that there is a paucity of case law dealing with intra-court comity. Courts follow the doctrine to provide a uniform interpretation of the law. Unlike circuit court panels where one panel will not overrule another, district courts are not held to the same standard. See Anaya, 509 F.Supp. at 293 n. 2 (holding that even district court cases decided by panels of three have no precedential value). While the decisions of their fellow judges are persuasive, they are not binding authority. As a result, the district court cannot be said to be bound by a decision of one of its brother or sister judges. Based on this, as well as the lack of precedent to conclude that intra-court comity applies between courts on the district court level, […]" Therefore, my conclusion is that the Northern and Middle Federal District Courts of Alabama are free to rule differently from Judge Granade.

    Now, when Judge Hinkle issued his clarification, he did not explicitly state that any plaintiff, regardless of the geographical region in which they were denied a marriage license, could be asked to be added as a party to his case that arose out of the Northern District, unless it is certified as a class-action suit. I don't believe he could have made such a claim due to the rules of proper venue laid out in the US Code I've cited above – I may be wrong and perhaps I've overlooked some other rules that could carve out exceptions.

  • 17. sfbob  |  February 12, 2015 at 9:24 pm

    I suspect that the basis of Judge Hinkle's statement, quoted verbatim by Judge Granade, lies in the finale which says approximately that while their orders only bind certain parties, the Constitution binds everyone else. In other words, others not bound by the actual decision were free to continue to operate as though it had never been issued. However, Judge Hinkle was sufficiently sure of his position and Judge Granade was sufficiently sure of her position that in their view anyone not directly bound was essentially inviting litigation that would have a very high probability of success. In a certain sense it could be read as an example of "are you feeling lucky?" There is no guarantee that other judges in other districts would rule in a similar fashion and there is no precedent established binding other judges in other districts. Still, their decisions are out there to be cited by additional judges and there are far more federal court decisions striking down marriage equality bans than there are supporting those bans so there's a whole bunch of material for any pro-equality judge to choose from in crafting their own opinion. Any county official choosing to play the odds would be well advised to consider those odds very, very carefully.

  • 18. Raga  |  February 12, 2015 at 10:00 pm

    I fully agree. But in Alabama, the odds of getting a judge like Feldman (LA) or Jones (NV) assigned to your case are pretty good, I'd say – in the Northern and Middle Districts. Though, in most courts, new cases that are filed that raise the same questions as an existing case would be assigned to the same judge for efficiency/uniformity. So, it would probably go to Judge Proctor in the Northern District (where Aaron-Brush v. Bentley is still proceeding as if nothing has happened in Alabama – just last week, Judge Proctor just signed an order amending a previous scheduling order, requiring all potentially dispositive motions to be filed by July 31, 2015) and Judge Walker in the Middle District (where Hard v. Bentley is stagnant – Plaintiff Hard just notified the court officially of the Searcy decision. Since his marriage is now recognized, that case may be moot.)

  • 19. VIRick  |  February 12, 2015 at 9:39 pm

    Raga, you're amazing!! And soooooo thorough!!

    You made me dig back though my records to check on a fine point about which I did not clearly understand at the time of its happening in the convoluted court history of the Florida federal cases. Normally, we only refer to the one federal case, "Brenner v. Scott," which was filed first, and which was filed in the Northern Florida District Court in Tallahassee. However, there was a second case, "Grimsley and Albu v. Scott," which was filed in the Southern Florida District Court in Miami.

    In due course, this second case was transferred and consolidated with "Brenner," precisely as you outlined in your point #1 (Jurisdiction), the details of which were mostly "lost' on Jim Brenner, and thus, were also "lost" on me. However, having been consolidated, the two cases were then jointly assigned to Judge Hinkle. At the time, I did not understand all that intricate, dragged out fussing regarding the transfer of "Grimsley and Albu" from the Southern Florida District to the Northern Florida District, other than to realize that "Brenner" held precedence over it, and that the consolidation would solidify a state-wide ruling.

    So, you are technically correct, and therefore, there is a slight difference between the situation in Florida v. that of Alabama. When Judge Hinkle issued his "Order of Clarification" which covered the TWO cases under his purview, one from the Northern Florida District and one from the Southern Florida District, (missing only the Middle Florida District), his order actually covered a bigger chunk of the state, and included most of the more problematic portions, particularly that western strip which I so "fondly" refer to as South Alabama, and which detractors call the "Redneck Riviera." The Middle District, which includes Orlando, Tampa, St. Petersburg, and surrounding counties, was relatively happy to comply with Judge Hinkle's ruling, to the point where a number of counties within that jurisdiction were vying to be first off the mark (Osceola County won).

    However, let's make a deal and not tell the folks in Alabama, as it appears that quite a few counties throughout the state will be ready to go along in agreement with the latest order effective from tomorrow morning.

  • 20. Raga  |  February 12, 2015 at 10:01 pm

    I'd forgotten the transfer and consolidation of the Florida cases too! Thanks for the refreshing my memory. I'm curious what procedure was followed there – whether a seven-member panel was involved or whether all parties simply agreed to it. I agree, let's pretend this conversation never happened 🙂

  • 21. RobW303  |  February 12, 2015 at 11:18 pm

    Since the attorney general and all parties working in concert with him were enjoined, wouldn't this have state-wide effect?

    I would love to see a judge from one of the other districts hand to a litigating PJ from the bench a copy of Judge Granade's order and rule simply "I concur," as the PJs handed copies of Judge Moore's order to couples seeking licenses. That would be delicious irony.

  • 22. Raga  |  February 13, 2015 at 7:39 am

    In Searcy, only the AG was enjoined. In the original Strawser injunction, the AG and all his agents, officers, and everyone working in concert with him were enjoined. But this doesn't include probate judges. Judge Granade admitted that in her clarification, quoting from Hinkle that her injunction doesn't apply to probate judges, but the Constitution would bind them.

  • 23. Eric  |  February 12, 2015 at 8:22 pm

    Governments are typically immune from punitive damages. One could sue the probate judge in their individual capacity.

  • 24. jdw_karasu  |  February 12, 2015 at 3:24 pm


  • 25. MichaelGrabow  |  February 12, 2015 at 5:32 pm

    I love it when judges get snarky.

  • 26. VIRick  |  February 12, 2015 at 6:59 pm

    Undoubtedly, she will be even snarkier if she has to issue a third "Order of Clarification" to yet another recalcitrant dolt pretending to be an elected Alabama probate judge.

  • 27. ReadLearn  |  February 12, 2015 at 3:26 pm

    Is there an updated map or list of which counties are issuing marriage licenses now?

  • 28. netoschultz  |  February 12, 2015 at 3:28 pm

  • 29. DACiowan  |  February 12, 2015 at 3:57 pm

    I'm helping to update that map and will get Tuscaloosa on it in another hour or so. My iPhone doesn't run the software to update it.

  • 30. ReadLearn  |  February 12, 2015 at 4:27 pm

    Just saw that Baldwin county has also issued a license.

  • 31. ReadLearn  |  February 13, 2015 at 10:09 am

    Good job. Thanks for the update today! Looks like about 2/3rds or more of the counties are issuing today.

  • 32. davepCA  |  February 12, 2015 at 6:53 pm

    According to that map at 6:50 PM, if someone lives in any county that isn't issuing licenses, they only need to drive across one adjacent non-issuing county at the most to get to a county that is complying with the ruling. Not that this is okay, but it's rapid progress.

  • 33. guitaristbl  |  February 12, 2015 at 3:35 pm

    The map of wikipedia has certain disagreements with this one (not updated for Mobile and Tuscaloosa yet) :

    Crenshaw and Geneva seem to be disagreements between the two maps though..

  • 34. netoschultz  |  February 12, 2015 at 3:41 pm

  • 35. guitaristbl  |  February 12, 2015 at 3:27 pm

    Now it remains to be seen a) What Moore is going to do (illegally) to ruin that one ? and b) Will the rest of the counties receive the message ?

  • 36. montezuma58  |  February 12, 2015 at 3:38 pm

    Looks like other counties are seeing the light.

  • 37. montezuma58  |  February 12, 2015 at 3:31 pm

    Tuscaloosa County falls in line.

  • 38. RQO  |  February 12, 2015 at 3:32 pm

    So far, this is going a whole lot better than Kansas.

  • 39. DrBriCA  |  February 12, 2015 at 3:41 pm

    Agreed. Granade has been light-years faster in responding to the amended complaint and clarification respects compared with Crabtree, who basically started the process all over again with hearings and discovery phases just to get the rest of Kansas in line!

  • 40. cpnlsn88  |  February 12, 2015 at 4:00 pm

    Florida has also been a model to follow in alabama

  • 41. VIRick  |  February 12, 2015 at 7:45 pm

    Absolutely correct, especiaully given that both Alabama and Florida are in the 11th circuit,– along with the fact that Judge Granade wisely did a copy-and-paste of Judge Hinkle's "Order of Clarification." Of course, she's had to do her clarification twice (Judge Hinkle only had to do it once), but then, Alabama is Alabama, not Florida.

  • 42. Ryan K (a.k.a. KELL)  |  February 12, 2015 at 10:27 pm

    Love the use of Control-C followed by a quick Control-V.

    (Rick – I can ONLY imagine what kind of response you can provide to that.)

  • 43. DrBriCA  |  February 12, 2015 at 10:39 pm

    "You've been told." Twice now!

  • 44. VIRick  |  February 13, 2015 at 1:17 am

    "You've been told." Twice now!

    Indeed! And don't let me have to tell you a third time!

    Apparently, the Mobile County Probate Judge was totally clarified, as he had his office open for business by 4:06 PM the same afternoon, and was last seen busily marrying same-sex couples. Baldwin County and Tuscaloosa County were all "Yes sir, ma'am, we're ready, too!" So, bless their hearts.

    Still, "Redneck heaven" might hold out for a bit longer. As a result, I figure the bible diploma guy passing for a probate judge in Washington County is next. Unless, of course, she'd prefer to tackle the University of Alabama football player passing for a probate judge in Pike County.

  • 45. DACiowan  |  February 12, 2015 at 4:05 pm

    It helps that the Governor of Alabama isn't being obstinate like Brownback is being. Alabama is being the more rational state: wtf

  • 46. VIRick  |  February 12, 2015 at 7:48 pm

    "Alabama is being the more rational state: wtf "

    DACiowan, I don't know what to say. Alabama is being more rational than someone else???

  • 47. Zack12  |  February 12, 2015 at 4:34 pm

    Like Judge Childs in South Carolina, I think Crabtree is a judge that would have liked to rule against marriage equality but knows he can't.
    So he is simply slowalking the process instead.

  • 48. VIRick  |  February 13, 2015 at 1:27 am

    Zack, I think there's a third alternative. Some of these judges simply don't want to rule,– at all,– either way. Judge Childs struck me as being in that mode, because, in the end, as the clutch-hitter, when she finally ruled, she ruled. She just didn't want to be first to have to rule in what was perceived as being a difficult state.

    Judge Crabtree in Kansas is a new judge in an equally difficult state, given the presence of the WBC and other certified nut-cases, Governor Bareback, and that true troll of an AG of his, Herr Schmidt.

  • 49. Raga  |  February 12, 2015 at 3:34 pm


    I particularly liked the segment where he reads off a list of suggested names for the Scalia-Thomas couple: "Scalomas", "Sclarence Thomatin", "Antonym Sconce-Thom", "Clarisse Tamatomanin", "Ninsict Scomliose", "Antonio Ban-Sclarence", "Claritin Non-Drowsy", "Melatonin Chlamydia". What's your favorite?

  • 50. VIRick  |  February 13, 2015 at 1:31 am

    I've always liked "Clarabel Argle-bargle" but otherwise, sticking to the list, "Melatonin Chlamydia" works quite nicely as a summary judgment.

  • 51. ReadLearn  |  February 12, 2015 at 3:58 pm

    That covers all the population centers of Alabama now. Would be interested to know what percentage of the population lives in a ME county. I think some of the rural counties will hold out until they are sued. We'll see. It's pretty much done.

  • 52. VIRick  |  February 12, 2015 at 8:00 pm

    "…. what percentage of the population lives in a ME county."

    Actually, they ALL do,– it's just that some people haven't yet come to that realization.

    I think, instead, you're inquiring as to what percentage live in counties which have already implemented the court ruling.

    And it's not totally an urban/rural thing in Alabama. The rural areas of the "Alabama black belt," the part of the state with a majority black population, have been with us (that big lump of green in south-central Alabama surrounding Montgomery).

    In contrast, the rural areas of "redneck heaven" will hold out to the bitter end. "Redneck heaven" comprises absolutely everything, about two counties wide, over aganist the Mississippi state line, the rural outer ring around Birmingham, and a long stripe down the Georgia state line.

  • 53. netoschultz  |  February 12, 2015 at 4:13 pm

    Tim Russell is joining a growing list of probate judges in Alabama who said they will begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples after Thursday's ruling by U.S. District Judge Callie V. Granade ordering Mobile County Probate Judge Don Davis to do so.

    Russell, probate judge in Baldwin County, was one of many judges on Monday who was not issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples after Alabama Supreme Court Presiding Judge Roy Moore instructed them not to do so.

  • 54. Pat_V  |  February 12, 2015 at 4:25 pm

    Yay! Baldwin is the 7th more populous county in Alabama, now bringing the total to 61% of the population! (and there might be more counties that I missed: guys, feel free to update the sheet)

  • 55. 1grod  |  February 12, 2015 at 4:44 pm

    Pat, and Neto, this is consistent with my off-line spreadsheet. Henry County is quoted as saying that while it has not been issuing licenses all week, "it is a priority to me not to put our county in a position to face a lawsuit" said Judge David Money. Expect by tomorrow Henry with a population of 17302 will be in the inclusive state ranks.

  • 56. guitaristbl  |  February 12, 2015 at 4:18 pm

    "Randolph County Probate Judge George Diamond told that he won't follow an order that doesn't apply to his county. Right now, the county is not issuing licenses to any couples, same-sex or straight."

    They just never learn… *sigh*

  • 57. Fledge01  |  February 12, 2015 at 6:20 pm

    Reading today's order, I see that the judge did not order Mobile to issue licenses, only that they had to permit all couples to be married under the same terms that opposite sex couples are permitted to be married. This ruling leaves open the option that, if a county does not issue any licenses to anybody, they don't have to give licenses to same sex couples.

    What is unanswered is whether a county has to issue marriage licenses at all. I would think this would not be a federal question for federal courts, but a state court issue. Because I don't think states have to issue licenses at all, they just have to recognize a marriage if they give rights to married couples. And since every state has special rights to married couples, they just need some system of recognizing it. Recording a marriage with the state is separate from issuing licenses. Recording a marriage is not definative of anything. Its like recording a trade mark. A recorded trademark may be proof of a trademark and it may not. Only a judge can recognize the true owner of a trademark. Recording a marriage only is a way to say, here are the marriages that have been recorded. Its not a conclusive or all inclusive list of anything .

  • 58. Jaesun100  |  February 12, 2015 at 8:03 pm

    IMO they may not have to issue them at all, however they will have to recognize them from other counties ..why would they want to lose out on all that revenue? …they are just mad and having a knee jerk reaction. When they cool off they will see how irrational they are being .

  • 59. netoschultz  |  February 12, 2015 at 4:49 pm


    Lee County will issue same-sex marriage licenses beginning Friday morning, the result of a Thursday order issued by Judge Callie Granade

  • 60. montezuma58  |  February 13, 2015 at 3:05 am

  • 61. davepCA  |  February 12, 2015 at 7:12 pm

    Off topic – I was away from the computer most of the day because I was attending a marriage ceremony of a good friend of mine and his new husband at San Francisco City Hall, followed by a reception at a restaurant in the Castro. My friend is a really wonderful guy who immigrated here from Ireland several years ago, triumphed over a long period of uncertainty due to idiotic and unjust treatment by the Immigration folks, and went on to build a career helping those in our society who are less fortunate that most. Throughout that time, when he and I would get together, he would often ask me about how things were going with the Marriage Equality situation (he said he understood my explanations better than those he got elsewhere). He was always appreciative of the work that people like the participants at EoT were doing.

    It was wonderful seeing him and his new husband getting married today. As I watched them exchanging vows, I thought 'THIS is what this is all about'. We had a group picture taken in front of the bronze bust of Harvey Milk in the City Hall rotunda before moving to the reception. And near the end of the day, he made a point to thank me for all that I had done to contribute to the fact that he and his husband were able to legally marry, and he wanted me to be sure to express his thanks to all of you here at EoT. So congratulations, Declan, our best to you and Aaron, and you're most welcome.

  • 62. StraightDave  |  February 12, 2015 at 8:34 pm

    Words I never thought I would hear myself say: "Go rednecks"!
    Ya gotta check out this video of a dude in Blount County surveying the post-apocalypse scene in his backyard.

    Scroll down to the video at the bottom.

    "No plagues of homosexuals falling from the sky".
    It's nice to see somebody puncture all my stereotypes.

  • 63. sfbob  |  February 12, 2015 at 9:15 pm

    That was great! Thanks for sharing the link.

  • 64. VIRick  |  February 13, 2015 at 1:53 am

    Dave, sometimes people in the most surprising places can suddenly manifest themselves.

    I'll never forget the first time I heard the so-called gay "Southern National Anthem" belted out by an assembled group of "out" men in eastern Tennessee, giving a totally new meaning to Tammy Wynette's hit "Stand By Your Man," complete with cute demonstrations, all perfectly choreographed, right down to the correct twang.

  • 65. brandall  |  February 13, 2015 at 7:30 pm

    Hysterical, especially from a self-confessed redneck.

Having technical problems? Visit our support page to report an issue!