Judge overturns California's ban on s...

Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 201887 comments on the www.cnn.com story from Aug 4, 2010, titled Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage. In it, www.cnn.com reports that:

A federal judge in California has knocked down the state's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage, ruling Wednesday that the state's controversial Proposition 8 violates the U.S. Constitution.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.cnn.com.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#193644 May 28, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Why are you rainbow flag wavers trying to distance yourselves from your poly brothers and sisters?
That's all you've got left, huh?

Desperate is not your color.
Big D

Modesto, CA

#193648 May 28, 2013
Tony C wrote:
<quoted text>
That's all you've got left, huh?
Desperate is not your color.
You have not been here long enough, desperate actually is his color

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#193650 May 28, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Simple. One nationwide definition of marriage, prior to 2004. Monogamous union of husband and wife. Applied to ALL Americans. Everyone could have one spouse of the opposite sex. Now the OS requirement has been dropped in a few states, and the polygamists have their own reality show. Plus they have publicly supported SSM.
<quoted text>
Think about it. Basic requirements. One must be of age, able to consent, not currently married, not a close blood relative of the other party, and is willing to accept someone one of the opposite sex as heir respective legal husband or wife. The OS requirement has been dropped, so what else is expendable? Age? No. Consent? No. That leaves number, and blood relation.
<quoted text>
You continue to dodge the question. If marriage is no longer defined as the monogamous union of husband and wife, why does it matter if monogamy is maintained? Why does it matter who marries who, or doesn't marry who?
<quoted text>
Ask the question: "If monogamous conjugal, husband and wife,marriage which is the foundation of a stable society in this country, is no longer the sole legal marital standard, and individuals are allowed to have the state sanction their consenting personal intimate sexual relationships as marriage, regardless of the number or nature of said relationship, why then, should polygamy be excluded?
<quoted text>
Not quite sparky. Interracial marriage existed in various parts of the country, during various times, for example mid 19th century New York City, long before SSM was even conceived of. Besides, you're basing your claim on one elected official from that time period. Weak, Vee Vee.
You keep making the HUGE leap from same-sex marriage to polygamy.

You keep asking "Why should polygamy be excluded?" Do you want polygamy to be excluded? Are you in favor of polygamy? If you are in favor of polygamy, then be default, you must also be in favor of same-sex marriage.

Re: interracial marriage... In your post above you say that "Interracial marriage existed in various parts of the country, during various times..."

Yes it did. And now we have a situation where same-sex marriage exists in various parts of the country.

And the one politician that you refer to happens to be THE Attorney General who LOST the landmark case, Loving v. Virginia. He wasn't just some idiot. He fought against interracial marriage and lost before the Supreme Court.

And he argued, just as you are arguing now, that interracial marriage will decimate "traditional" marriage. He claimed that once the races are allowed to intermarry, then everything is up for grabs--polygamy, marriage to people who were intellectually unable to consent to marriage, etc.

If polygamy hasn't happened in the nearly 50 years that interracial marriage has been legal, then it's not going to happen now.

Your idiotic scare tactics, your illogical belief that one thing inherently leads to another, and your other rhetoric may convince a few people, but in the long run it won't make a difference.

The barrel is rolling in our favor. When will the scales firmly tip in our favor? Who knows? Illinois is on the verge of passing same-sex marriage. There have been several states that either voted or legislated laws that legalized same-sex marriage over the past few years. The President believes that DOMA is unconstitutional and wants the DOJ to stop enforcing it. "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" has gone down in flames.

If I was a betting man, I'd say we'll see nationwide legalization of same-sex marriage within the decade.

Since: Dec 09

Knoxville, TN

#193651 May 28, 2013
Europa Report wrote:
<quoted text>
In fact, "straight married couples" are THE MOST DIVORCED people in the U.S.! How is that a "Gold Standard" ?!
Here's how "straight married couples" have kept marriage such a sanctimonious and "traditional" social institution...

They spend forty-billion dollars each year marrying one another, and then turn around and spend a little over thirty-three billion divorcing.

And they have the AUDACITY to try to tell us that WE'RE going to destroy marriage!

Ain't that a kick in the pants?

“Building Better Worlds”

Since: May 13

Europa

#193652 May 28, 2013
I'm openly gay, live in a place without marriage equality, and thus cannot get married.

I have 2 sisters who have each been married 3 times (to opposite gender people).

Since: Jan 10

Lewis Center, OH

#193655 May 28, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's how "straight married couples" have kept marriage such a sanctimonious and "traditional" social institution...
They spend forty-billion dollars each year marrying one another, and then turn around and spend a little over thirty-three billion divorcing.
And they have the AUDACITY to try to tell us that WE'RE going to destroy marriage!
Ain't that a kick in the pants?
Yeah, they have a knack for ignoring that fact when they’re acting all superior and condescending. And let’s not forget that we all secretly want to get them naked, as if. Shudder.

Since: Jan 10

Lewis Center, OH

#193656 May 28, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
You keep making the HUGE leap from same-sex marriage to polygamy.
You keep asking "Why should polygamy be excluded?" Do you want polygamy to be excluded? Are you in favor of polygamy? If you are in favor of polygamy, then be default, you must also be in favor of same-sex marriage.
Re: interracial marriage... In your post above you say that "Interracial marriage existed in various parts of the country, during various times..."
Yes it did. And now we have a situation where same-sex marriage exists in various parts of the country.
And the one politician that you refer to happens to be THE Attorney General who LOST the landmark case, Loving v. Virginia. He wasn't just some idiot. He fought against interracial marriage and lost before the Supreme Court.
And he argued, just as you are arguing now, that interracial marriage will decimate "traditional" marriage. He claimed that once the races are allowed to intermarry, then everything is up for grabs--polygamy, marriage to people who were intellectually unable to consent to marriage, etc.
If polygamy hasn't happened in the nearly 50 years that interracial marriage has been legal, then it's not going to happen now.
Your idiotic scare tactics, your illogical belief that one thing inherently leads to another, and your other rhetoric may convince a few people, but in the long run it won't make a difference.
The barrel is rolling in our favor. When will the scales firmly tip in our favor? Who knows? Illinois is on the verge of passing same-sex marriage. There have been several states that either voted or legislated laws that legalized same-sex marriage over the past few years. The President believes that DOMA is unconstitutional and wants the DOJ to stop enforcing it. "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" has gone down in flames.
If I was a betting man, I'd say we'll see nationwide legalization of same-sex marriage within the decade.
Well said and spot on. I’m so amazed, happy and proud of what we’ve accomplished in such a short period of time. I agree, the tide has turned and I think there will be legal Gay Marriage for all Gay Americans in less time than we think. Reasonable educated people are aware of the injustices perpetrated against Gay Americans and are rightfully supporting our fight for equal rights.
Fouled Out

San Dimas, CA

#193657 May 28, 2013
Douglas Tessitor of Glendora, California appears to be on his less than healthy bed?

Guess he will miss the city council meeting? but for how long? Maybe it's for ever?
Adam Mosh

Sunnyvale, CA

#193659 May 28, 2013
I have always thought this argument was stemming from a false dichotomy. Marriage licenses came about because of miscegenation laws - do any of you realize that?

When my grandmother got married, she went to a church and got married. There was no marriage license, there was no government intervention. She didn't get a tax advantage or a tax hit. The government had nothing to do with it.

I am trying to figure out why people think it's acceptable for the GOVERNMENT to even recognize marriage at all.

Sure there are obligations when you get married, and there are privileges as well such as a power of attorney if you spouse gets seriously ill, or visitations rights, etc.

It should just be contract law and marriage should be entirely based up to the individuals involved. It's none of the government's business who you are in a relationship with - it's just you, and the people you have a relationship with.

You shouldn't get a tax penalty, or a tax supplement for being married. You shouldn't get advantages or disadvantages for being married. Why should the government be involved at all in relationships at all?

But we have this dumb debate that's a carry over from a bunch of laws created by the Klu Klux Klan in segregated America.

Meanwhile, the country has a debt of 16.7 trillion dollars, raises less than 16% of that per year in tax revenue, is involved in one war directly, is agitating one in Syria, wants to go to war with Iran, is still occupying Iraq with a bunch of mercenaries, has signed the NDAA which eliminates 5th amendment rights, is phonetapping the entire country,

But this is the "BIG DEBATE" at the moment. The cause du jour.

Maybe we can start arguing about flag burning, and school prayer next? I mean, that's more important than fundamental constitutional rights and the solvency of the nation - isn't it??

“Building Better Worlds”

Since: May 13

Europa

#193660 May 28, 2013
Adam Mosh wrote:
I have always thought this argument was stemming from a false dichotomy. Marriage licenses came about because of miscegenation laws - do any of you realize that?
When my grandmother got married, she went to a church and got married. There was no marriage license, there was no government intervention. She didn't get a tax advantage or a tax hit. The government had nothing to do with it.
I am trying to figure out why people think it's acceptable for the GOVERNMENT to even recognize marriage at all.
Sure there are obligations when you get married, and there are privileges as well such as a power of attorney if you spouse gets seriously ill, or visitations rights, etc.
It should just be contract law and marriage should be entirely based up to the individuals involved. It's none of the government's business who you are in a relationship with - it's just you, and the people you have a relationship with.
You shouldn't get a tax penalty, or a tax supplement for being married. You shouldn't get advantages or disadvantages for being married. Why should the government be involved at all in relationships at all?
But we have this dumb debate that's a carry over from a bunch of laws created by the Klu Klux Klan in segregated America.
Meanwhile, the country has a debt of 16.7 trillion dollars, raises less than 16% of that per year in tax revenue, is involved in one war directly, is agitating one in Syria, wants to go to war with Iran, is still occupying Iraq with a bunch of mercenaries, has signed the NDAA which eliminates 5th amendment rights, is phonetapping the entire country,
But this is the "BIG DEBATE" at the moment. The cause du jour.
Maybe we can start arguing about flag burning, and school prayer next? I mean, that's more important than fundamental constitutional rights and the solvency of the nation - isn't it??
Good post !
Im your Huckleberry

Redding, CA

#193661 May 28, 2013
Adam Mosh wrote:
I have always thought this argument was stemming from a false dichotomy. Marriage licenses came about because of miscegenation laws - do any of you realize that?
When my grandmother got married, she went to a church and got married. There was no marriage license, there was no government intervention. She didn't get a tax advantage or a tax hit. The government had nothing to do with it.
I am trying to figure out why people think it's acceptable for the GOVERNMENT to even recognize marriage at all.
Sure there are obligations when you get married, and there are privileges as well such as a power of attorney if you spouse gets seriously ill, or visitations rights, etc.
It should just be contract law and marriage should be entirely based up to the individuals involved. You shouldn't get a tax penalty, or a tax supplement for being married. You shouldn't get advantages or disadvantages for being married. Why should the government be involved at all in relationships at all?
But we have this dumb debate that's a carry over from a bunch of laws created by the Klu Klux Klan in segregated America.
Meanwhile, the country has a debt of 16.7 trillion dollars, raises less than 16% of that per year in tax revenue, is involved in one war directly, is agitating one in Syria, wants to go to war with Iran, is still occupying Iraq with a bunch of mercenaries, has signed the NDAA which eliminates 5th amendment rights, is phonetapping the entire country,
But this is the "BIG DEBATE" at the moment. The cause du jour.
Maybe we can start arguing about flag burning, and school prayer next? I mean, that's more important than fundamental constitutional rights and the solvency of the nation - isn't it??
OK Adam, let's dance...

Would you happen to know what the earliest Historical source is that refers to Marriage?

When you say, "It's none of the government's business who you are in a relationship with - it's just you, and the people you have a relationship with."

Now think about that statement...some of the consequences?

Not sure you thought this one all the way through, huh?
Adam Mosh

Sunnyvale, CA

#193662 May 29, 2013
Im your Huckleberry wrote:
<quoted text>
OK Adam, let's dance...
Would you happen to know what the earliest Historical source is that refers to Marriage?
When you say, "It's none of the government's business who you are in a relationship with - it's just you, and the people you have a relationship with."
Now think about that statement...some of the consequences?
Not sure you thought this one all the way through, huh?
Marriage has been a cultural tradition for ages in all cultures. Monogamy, polygamy and polyandry (bet you have to look that one up!) have been common, and all of them still exist although not officially in this country.

Marriage hasn't always been something the government imposed on people. That's new. It certainly isn't a federal debate. The federal government has no right at all to even consider this issue one way or another. At BEST it's a state issue.

And what consequences? Statutory rape won't go away, if that's what you're thinking of. Marriage is just a word. Get married if you like. I don't care if you're married to 3 women and 4 men. I don't care. It's none of my business.

This should be limited to contract law. Why, for example, should somebody have to register a sexual relationship to get contract law for visitation rights, power of attorney, or whatever else the perceived benefits of marriage are? If you have children with your partner, why should obligations be different for each parent regardless?

But again:

I think this whole thing is just a stupid distraction. There's a lot more important things going on now. I'm tired of these trivial debates of stupidity that don't even deserve national attention when major issues that absolutely deserve national attention aren't even discussed.

I'm not interested in a debate about this. I simply don't care about it. I'm only expressing my frustration with this constant topic that gets a bunch of idiots into a war over when they have a fundamental responsibility to consider really urgent issues as our country hits a debt to income ratio it hasn't seen since 1932, is going to war all constantly and unnecessarily, while it dismantles the constitution.

Get your freaking priorities straight or you kids can live in a bankrupt, fascist failed nation.

Oh, but let's get back to gay marriage. It's so important that this big issue gets resolved by government, which shouldn't even be involved.
Im your Huckleberry

Redding, CA

#193663 May 29, 2013
Adam Mosh wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage has been a cultural tradition for ages in all cultures. Monogamy, polygamy and polyandry (bet you have to look that one up!) have been common, and all of them still exist although not officially in this country.
Marriage hasn't always been something the government imposed on people. That's new. It certainly isn't a federal debate. The federal government has no right at all to even consider this issue one way or another. At BEST it's a state issue.
And what consequences? Statutory rape won't go away, if that's what you're thinking of. Marriage is just a word. Get married if you like. I don't care if you're married to 3 women and 4 men. I don't care. It's none of my business.
This should be limited to contract law. Why, for example, should somebody have to register a sexual relationship to get contract law for visitation rights, power of attorney, or whatever else the perceived benefits of marriage are? If you have children with your partner, why should obligations be different for each parent regardless?
But again:
I think this whole thing is just a stupid distraction. There's a lot more important things going on now. I'm tired of these trivial debates of stupidity that don't even deserve national attention when major issues that absolutely deserve national attention aren't even discussed.
I'm not interested in a debate about this. I simply don't care about it. I'm only expressing my frustration with this constant topic that gets a bunch of idiots into a war over when they have a fundamental responsibility to consider really urgent issues as our country hits a debt to income ratio it hasn't seen since 1932, is going to war all constantly and unnecessarily, while it dismantles the constitution.
Get your freaking priorities straight or you kids can live in a bankrupt, fascist failed nation.
Oh, but let's get back to gay marriage. It's so important that this big issue gets resolved by government, which shouldn't even be involved.
Well then I guess it would be pointless to explore the history of Marriage.

You are right of course about the attention this is given considering the other pressing issues we face as you mention.
Adam Mosh

Sunnyvale, CA

#193664 May 29, 2013
Im your Huckleberry wrote:
<quoted text>
Well then I guess it would be pointless to explore the history of Marriage.
Yep.

Why should anybody care? Heck, in Sparta women had to dress like boys when introduced to their husbands, because in Sparta, the state thought homosexuality was great - after all, you're more likely to fight more fiercely when your sexual partner's life was also at risk. Men just weren't used to women in that culture.

Hinduism mentions marriage, it's the oldest religion in the world that is still practiced. Of course, in that religion, widows were expected to commit suicide by throwing themselves on the funeral pyre.

Does this have anything to do with our nation today? No. Does this relate to the "debate" about gay marriage? No.

Marriage in all cultures was basically a social contract to create and raise children as near as I can tell historically. That kind of went out with the 1960's "sexual revolution" when single parent families suddenly became acceptable. If that's culturally OK today, then why even have state marriage at all? What purpose does it serve?

It's just a freaking word. Why homosexual couples want is the associated contract law - and they can all their union anything they please.

Just settle this STUPID ISSUE and move on.

OK, I'm nearly done ranting. Just this whole thing just totally vexes me. So tired of people trying to get the government in on EVERYTHING. When the government manages to balance their budget, then they might have the right to dictate to everybody what should and shouldn't be done in their PERSONAL lives - but to me, they are just a bunch of power hungry incompetents with a bunch of mewling babies screaming at it like it's a parent or something.

These group of morons distract you with a shiny object and you run with it while another trillion dollars is dropped down a hole to a bunch of criminals in the financial sector, and you don't even know it and you run with it for YEARS. The abortion "issue", the flag burning "issue", the school prayer "issue". blah blah blah blah blah.

But back to the vitally important issue of gay marriage again. Why does NFL MVP Adrian Peterson think about it? ANS: WHO CARES?

But it's in the "news".

Got any idea what bills are in Congress right now and how your representative plans to vote on them? Why that garbage doesn't belong in our media at all!!! Does it? Hey, can you even name ONE BILL that has been passed into law this year? Gee, that isn't covered in our "media". Guess that doesn't effect anybody in the US - why cover it?

Back to this important issue of Gay Marriage. What does Oprah think?

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#193665 May 29, 2013
KiMare wrote:
The Minnesota law highlights further implications of marriage redefinition in the law. For example, the law states that terms such as “husband,”“wife,”“mother,” and “father” that denote spousal and familial relationships in Minnesota law are to apply equally to persons in an opposite-sex or same-sex relationship.
The law also states that “parentage presumptions based on civil marriage” will also apply, thus allowing for children to have two mothers or two fathers.
http://www.catholicismusa.com/minnesota -
legislature-approves-gay-marri age-eliminates-
legal-status-of-mother-as-biol ogical-term/
Tony C wrote:
<quoted text>
I love how you think that's a big deal.
And black people are no longer considered 3/5 of a person, either.
Poor you.
Thank you for a great example;

Society for too long denied that Blacks were people because of their skin color.

Now we are attempting to deny that moms/dads are unique and significant roles.

Every person in existence has only ever one real mother and father. Never two, and always both.

You want to make them meaningless. A zero. Must make your mom and dad proud...

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#193666 May 29, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's how "straight married couples" have kept marriage such a sanctimonious and "traditional" social institution...
They spend forty-billion dollars each year marrying one another, and then turn around and spend a little over thirty-three billion divorcing.
And they have the AUDACITY to try to tell us that WE'RE going to destroy marriage!
Ain't that a kick in the pants?
Marram wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, they have a knack for ignoring that fact when they’re acting all superior and condescending. And let’s not forget that we all secretly want to get them naked, as if. Shudder.
As Paul Harvey would say, here is 'The Rest of the Story';

The last intervention into marriage by the government was to institute 'no fault' divorce.

Divorces skyrocketed, and the social health of children plummeted.

Now you want an even larger government intervention imposing a mutually sterile duplicated half on marriage?

Yeah, that sounds like another typical move by government...

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#193667 May 29, 2013
Marram wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, they have a knack for ignoring that fact when they’re acting all superior and condescending. And let’s not forget that we all secretly want to get them naked, as if. Shudder.
Similar to the attitude you express toward polygamy, and the fear that polygamists might crash your big fat Gay wedding?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#193668 May 29, 2013
Europa Report wrote:
I'm openly gay, live in a place without marriage equality, and thus cannot get married.
Openly happy?
I have 2 sisters who have each been married 3 times (to opposite gender people).
That would be "men". Hope that clears things up.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#193669 May 29, 2013
Marram wrote:
<quoted text>
Well said and spot on. I’m so amazed, happy and proud of what we’ve accomplished in such a short period of time. I agree, the tide has turned and I think there will be legal Gay Marriage for all Gay Americans in less time than we think. Reasonable educated people are aware of the injustices perpetrated against Gay Americans and are rightfully supporting our fight for equal rights.
Don't forget marmalade skies.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/5606348...

Justice brings up polygamy in Prop 8 gay marriage case
By Matt Canham | The Salt Lake Tribune
First Published Mar 26 2013 12:46 pm • Last Updated Mar 26 2013 07:22 pm

Washington • If gay marriage is legal, what about polygamy?

It’s a long-debated political question, one that surfaced in Tuesday’s Supreme Court hearing on California’s gay marriage ban, known as Proposition 8.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor brought it up while questioning former U.S. Solicitor General Ted Olson, a Republican who argued that gay marriage is an individual right and should be protected by the Constitution.

"If you say that marriage is a fundamental right, what state restrictions could ever exist?" Sotomayor asked before referencing polygamy and incest among adults.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#193670 May 29, 2013
veryvermilion wrote:
<quoted text>
You keep making the HUGE leap from same-sex marriage to polygamy.
You keep asking "Why should polygamy be excluded?" Do you want polygamy to be excluded? Are you in favor of polygamy? If you are in favor of polygamy, then be default, you must also be in favor of same-sex marriage.
Re: interracial marriage... In your post above you say that "Interracial marriage existed in various parts of the country, during various times..."
Yes it did. And now we have a situation where same-sex marriage exists in various parts of the country.
And the one politician that you refer to happens to be THE Attorney General who LOST the landmark case, Loving v. Virginia. He wasn't just some idiot. He fought against interracial marriage and lost before the Supreme Court.
And he argued, just as you are arguing now, that interracial marriage will decimate "traditional" marriage. He claimed that once the races are allowed to intermarry, then everything is up for grabs--polygamy, marriage to people who were intellectually unable to consent to marriage, etc.
If polygamy hasn't happened in the nearly 50 years that interracial marriage has been legal, then it's not going to happen now.
Your idiotic scare tactics, your illogical belief that one thing inherently leads to another, and your other rhetoric may convince a few people, but in the long run it won't make a difference.
The barrel is rolling in our favor. When will the scales firmly tip in our favor? Who knows? Illinois is on the verge of passing same-sex marriage. There have been several states that either voted or legislated laws that legalized same-sex marriage over the past few years. The President believes that DOMA is unconstitutional and wants the DOJ to stop enforcing it. "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" has gone down in flames.
If I was a betting man, I'd say we'll see nationwide legalization of same-sex marriage within the decade.
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/5606348...

Justice brings up polygamy in Prop 8 gay marriage case

BY MATT CANHAM
THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE
PUBLISHED: MARCH 29, 2013 11:28AM
UPDATED: MARCH 26, 2013 07:22PM

Washington • If gay marriage is legal, what about polygamy?

It’s a long-debated political question, one that surfaced in Tuesday’s Supreme Court hearing on California’s gay marriage ban, known as Proposition 8.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor brought it up while questioning former U.S. Solicitor General Ted Olson, a Republican who argued that gay marriage is an individual right and should be protected by the Constitution.

“If you say that marriage is a fundamental right, what state restrictions could ever exist?” Sotomayor asked before referencing polygamy and incest among adults.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Hemet Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Legalized Panhandling @ Stater Bros!!! Menifee (Apr '10) Sun Revelations 9
soboba indains beat teen girls 2x while walking... (Sep '09) Dec 3 Hpinkmi 13
News Gay priest from Redlands discusses sexuality, r... (Feb '15) Nov 29 Mike 11
Are black people afraid of if crosswalks? (Jan '12) Nov 28 Regolith Based Li... 22
young gay guys in hemet (Oct '14) Nov 28 tellinitlikeitis 17
Can white people call themselves African American? (Sep '12) Nov 26 Realest 154
Menifee- will it take a turn for the worst? (Aug '09) Nov 23 Pantiks 92

Hemet Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Hemet Mortgages