Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash...

Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes

There are 17556 comments on the NBC Chicago story from Jan 7, 2013, titled Church Leaders Vow Political Backlash if Gay Marriage Passes. In it, NBC Chicago reports that:

Leaders of several Chicago-area African American churches on Monday urged state lawmakers to vote against pending legislation that would allow same-sex marriage in Illinois.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at NBC Chicago.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#2687 Feb 20, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
What the heck are you talking about? What is a plural marriage, but multiple marriages of two people. For example, Kody Brown and his wife are one couple, Kody Brown and his second wife are also a couple, Kody and his third wife are also a couple....do you see a pattern here?
That's how YOU might consider them, but that's not how THEY might consider themselves. Is that how the law would see them? You don't know because there IS no law regarding recognition of polygamous marriages. THAT'S THE POINT.

You can't simply say, "Polygamy is now legal" without dealing with all the possible combinations and permutations of people entering and exiting the marriage, either through death or divorce, and the rights and protections of both the person leaving and those still in the marriage.

If a man has three wives and wishes to divorce one wife, but that wife wishes to remain married to the other two wives, then what?

How about if a man with three wives has children with all of them, and one of them wishes to divorce. Are the remaining two wives on the hook for alimony and child support, too? Or just the husband? Why are or aren't the remaining wives also responsible for it?

A woman with two husbands wishes to divorce one of them and keep custody of their children. Who pays alimony and child support to who? Should the ex-husband pay alimony to the ex-wife? The remaining husband? Should the two remaining married pay the ex-husband? Who pays child support and why?

A man with two wives passes away and leaves his entire estate to wife #2. Does wife #1 have any rights to the estate? Half? More? Less? Is he even allowed to cut out one of his wives in his will?

A man with three wives passes away. Are his three widows still married to each other?? Or are they all single again? Why??

Of course, you CAN create laws to deal with all these situations, but until you do, you CANNOT simply legalize polygamy. It's far too complex legally to simply dump such complex issues on the courts without any legal framework to work within.

You don't need to consider ANY of those things with gay couples because each party has only ONE legally recognized spouse. ALL the same laws that apply to opposite gender couples will apply in exactly the same way with same gender couples.

Why is that so hard for you to understand? Is it because the only way you can remain in the discussion is to hammer on and on about polygamy?? Because it's REALLY TOTALLY irrelevant to the discussion of marriage equality for gay COUPLES.
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
First, there are similarities in the arguments presented whether you wish to acknowledge them or not. Retread that piece I posted listing the similar arguments.
Exactly. And there are similarities between a married couple and a blueberry pie, too. Some are sweet and wonderful and some are tough and unpleasant. So what? It doesn't make a married couple the same as a blueberry pie, does it?
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>Second, you have the Brown family giving television interviews supporting gay marriage, and their attorney cited legal SSM in their law suit against the state of Utah.
And that effects gay couples how, exactly?? I'm sure the Brown family enjoys blueberry pies every now and then, too, as do my husband and I. Does that mean that we're all blueberry pies??
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>Lastly, if SSM marriage advocates are going to argue for their cause under the concept of "marriage equality", they have to realize others, plural marriage practioners will use that concept as well.
And, as we've been saying over and over, THEY CAN DO THAT!!! It's their right as citizens to pursue recognition of their civil rights using any and all arguments they believe will benefit them. SO F**KING WHAT???? That has NOTHING to do with gay couples legally marriying. NOTHING!

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#2688 Feb 20, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>....No, not at all. Both plural marriage, and interracial marriage preserve the conjugality of the marital relationship.....
You're making an illogical assumption that in a plural marriage, only the opposite gender couples are married to each other, but the same gender couples are not. Why would you make that assumption? What if there are two husbands and three wives and they all consider themselves equally married to each of the other four people?

Since we have no laws in place to deal with such situations, you can't simply declare that only the opposite gender partners are legally married to each other.

In fact, most the polygamous/polyamorous arrangements I know of do NOT consider only the opposite genders to be related to one another. They consider themselves to be one cohesive group, not a collection of couples. They would find that notion laughable as that's just not how they see themselves.

So why are you making such an assumption? Is your homophobia that deeply rooted?
Pietro Armando

North Billerica, MA

#2689 Feb 20, 2013
Rainbow Kid wrote:
<quoted text>
Same sex marriage has been around a long time:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026739...
Why are we having this debate then? We all should have grown up with SSM. Why hasn't there been a cross cultural cross time sustained same sex marriage, male or female, culture and structure?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#2690 Feb 20, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Why are we having this debate then? We all should have grown up with SSM. Why hasn't there been a cross cultural cross time sustained same sex marriage, male or female, culture and structure?
Don't be so impatient. Give it time my friend.
Rainbow Kid

Alpharetta, GA

#2691 Feb 20, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Why are we having this debate then? We all should have grown up with SSM. Why hasn't there been a cross cultural cross time sustained same sex marriage, male or female, culture and structure?
About 150 years ago; the Victorian era overshadowed traditional social sensibilities; including same-sex marriage
.
We're just now recovering

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#2692 Feb 20, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Why are we having this debate then? We all should have grown up with SSM. Why hasn't there been a cross cultural cross time sustained same sex marriage, male or female, culture and structure?
Short answer: The prejudice you and others promote.

Expanded answer: Gay people have always been a minority. While gay people have been accepted at various times and places, laws and religious beliefs at other various times and places have been used to punish and even exterminate gay people.

John Adams, the second U.S. president, observed that: "the majority has eternally, and without one exception, usurped over the rights of the minority."

And that is why James Madison wrote:“It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part … If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure.”

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#2693 Feb 20, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
Edmond
This one is for you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =7OEaRn3uHscXX
Thanks! That was very fascinating, and makes a good case for them.

Though I really don't understand YOUR position on this issue. Are you in favor of legalized polygamy, or against it? Do you intend this video as a well-framed argument, or as a cautionary tale?

As I said, I don't have an automatic negative reaction to the idea of polygamy, provided, as in this family, everyone is in it willingly, and has an equal part to play in family decisions.

I don't see anything wrong with how they're living. I see a much bigger problem with the government stepping into people's lives and dictating who can be a legally recognized family and who cannot. There's nothing wrong with investigating new ideas, and making them part of culture and society as long as they're not destructive or contributing to anyone's suffering. It certainly might be true that the struggle of gay rights could bring positive forms of polygamy to light, and I don't see that as a bad thing.

It was fascinating that one of the wives defended their arrangement by saying that this was how Abraham, Isaac and Jacob lived in the Bible. This is often an argument made by gay rights advocates, when confronted with oppositionists demanding that we stick to "biblical" forms of family. They seem to overlook these rather obvious biblical examples.

A couple of criticisms: one wife DID describe how she is occasionally frustrated and upset (to the point of tears) when the husband is with one of the other wives. It'd be important to consider that this arrangement DOES sometimes contribute to someone's suffering. This is a problem that cannot arise in a 2-person marriage.

Also... TWENTY-TWO kids?? Are there going to be enough JOBS for those kids when they become adults? How about their 400 GRANDkids? While not necessarily a product of polygamy, overpopulation is a very real problem in our world today, and one that will greatly affect the world of tomorrow. In this respect, this family is certainly not helping things.

But again, one issue that polygamy does complicate is current laws regarding taxes, inheritances, pensions, social security, etc. Not being a family lawyer, I don't even KNOW what all would need to be considered. For polygamy to be legalized, these laws would need to be re-tooled. And not just "once for polygamy", but possibly once for every numeric arrangement possible (or at least likely). Same-sex marriage does not raise this problem. What currently works for opposite-sex marriages will work for us. The states which have legalized marriage equality have had to do NOTHING extra than say "Yes, you may marry a spouse of your same gender". End of efforts.

This isn't necessarily an impassable block to polygamy, just a important point of consideration along the way to legalization. It should be kept in mind that polygamy requires extra attention in areas like this, where same-sex marriage does not.

But ultimately, polygamy is a SEPARATE issue from same-sex marriage, and must be dealt with separately. You can't simply INSIST that polygamy must be legalized (or even fought for) alongside same-sex marriage every step of the way. They will have to fight their own fight, making their own arguments. I do not WANT multiple spouses, I only want ONE, like everyone else gets. I cannot be expected to make their arguments FOR them, or to adopt their cause as my own.

Thoughts?

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#2694 Feb 20, 2013
The people who have discussed their own polyamorous relationships on these boards generally concluded that their own relationships are unique. They didn't think their solutions would necessarily apply to others. The woman in the video indicated that their household was quite different from the Jeffs compound.

I'm not going to try to prescribe solutions for polygamists. Let them propose the solutions and argue among themselves, then come to us.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#2695 Feb 20, 2013
WasteWater wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't be so impatient. Give it time my friend.
Thanks kimosabe

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#2696 Feb 20, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks! That was very fascinating, and makes a good case for them.
Though I really don't understand YOUR position on this issue. Are you in favor of legalized polygamy, or against it? Do you intend this video as a well-framed argument, or as a cautoionary tale?
As I said, I don't have an automatic negative reaction to the idea of polygamy, provided, as in this family, everyone is in it willingly, and has an equal part to play in family decisions.
I don't see anything wrong with how they're living. I see a much bigger problem with the government stepping into people's lives and dictating who can be a legally recognized family and who cannot. There's nothing wrong with investigating new ideas, and making them part of culture and society as long as they're not destructive or contributing to anyone's suffering. It certainly might be true that the struggle of gay rights could bring positive forms of polygamy to light, and I don't see that as a bad thing.
It was fascinating that one of the wives defended their arrangement by saying that this was how Abraham, Isaac and Jacob lived in the Bible. This is often an argument made by gay rights advocates, when confronted with oppositionists demanding that we stick to "biblical" forms of family. They seem to overlook these rather obvious biblical examples.
A couple of criticisms: one wife DID describe how she is occasionally frustrated and upset (to the point of tears) when the husband is with one of the other wives. It'd be important to consider that this arrangement DOES sometimes contribute to someone's suffering. This is a problem that cannot arise in a 2-person marriage.
Also... TWENTY-TWO kids?? Are there going to be enough JOBS for those kids when they become adults? How about their 400 GRANDkids? While not necessarily a product of polygamy, overpopulation is a very real problem in our world today, and one that will greatly affect the world of tomorrow. In this respect, this family is certainly not helping things.
But again, one issue that polygamy does complicate is current laws regarding taxes, inheritances, pensions, social security, etc. Not being a family lawyer, I don't even KNOW what all would need to be considered. For polygamy to be legalized, these laws would need to be re-tooled. And not just "once for polygamy", but possibly once for every numeric arrangement possible (or at least likely). Same-sex marriage does not raise this problem. What currently works for opposite-sex marriages will work for us. The states which have legalized marriage equality have had to do NOTHING extra than say "Yes, you may marry a spouse of your same gender". End of efforts.
This isn't necessarily an impassable block to polygamy, just a important point of consideration along the way to legalization. It should be kept in mind that polygamy requires extra attention in areas like this, where same-sex marriage does not.
But ultimately, polygamy is a SEPARATE issue from same-sex marriage, and must be dealt with separately. You can't simply INSIST that polygamy must be legalized (or even fought for) alongside same-sex marriage every step of the way. They will have to fight their own fight, making their own arguments. I do not WANT multiple spouses, I only want ONE, like everyone else gets. I cannot be expected to make their arguments FOR them, or to adopt their cause as my own.
Thoughts?
Thanks for the thoughtful response and asking for my thoughts. I'll respond....time's short at the moment.

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#2697 Feb 20, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Using a Sony Vaio won't change a fundamental social institution, there's no comparison.
Same sex marriage is bad because it introduces a novel standard of gender based discrimination in marriage, to create gender segregation marriage. If you love diversity and integration, keep marriage male/female.
So, Brain, when are they going to start forcing members of pro-sports teams in MD to start marring each other against their wills? You claimed that would be a result of the legalization of gay marriage!
(I know you won't answer, I just enjoy pointing out what an idiot you are!)

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#2698 Feb 20, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
I've stated in numerous posts in the past that there are some scattered historical examples of recognized ss unions in various societies, however there has not been a parallel , along side both monogamous and polygamous opposite sex marriage, same sex marriage sustained structure. If there were, there'd be no need for this debate, it'd already be part of our culture. So, yes same sex marriage is virtually a modern western invention.
Like the internet.

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#2699 Feb 20, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
No, Rosie Leg Lamp, Bi-Ol-LO-GY. That's why, except for a few scattered examples of recognized same sex union, and/or acceptance or toleration of same sex sexual behavior, SSM never took root, and developed along side both monogamous and polygamous opposite sex marriage.
Like that idiot Fido who figured that if I were a man, I'd consider being told I'm well hung an insult, you think that I consider being told I'm built like every man's idealized female form is an insult.
Go figure...

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#2700 Feb 20, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>The children of same sex marriage? Are you kidding? Talk about a minority of a minority, same sex marriage isn't the answer.
There is no gender equality right.
.
<quoted text>Standards create discrimination, that's inevitable. We disagree on marriage standards, there's no need to twist the argument. I like marriage as is, one man and one woman.
.
Why should the world revolve around what you like?
Selfish b!tch!
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>That can be said of polygamists or adult brother/sister couples. Then, why discriminate against singles?
Questions, what do singles and same sex couples have in common?
Answer, they both can't have kids unless they change their mating.
.
<quoted text>
.
<quoted text>
.
<quoted text>
So, when will prison rape become legal in MD?

Since: Apr 11

Panorama City, CA

#2701 Feb 20, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>The real issue is harm to homosexuals and everyone else; I like marriage as is. Don't rewrite law because you have power, you'll regret it later.
.
<quoted text>Homosexual couples aren't icky, but even if you feel that way, that feeling is real. Personally, I don't feel that way at all, but I do sympathize with you; only if you advocate respect and dignity to all, including homosexuals.
Criminalizing private sexual behavior isn't wise, nor is licensing same sex marriage. Get state out of marriage.
.
<quoted text>No, you need to stop state from harming families; that's why we keep marriage male/female.
.
<quoted text>Yes, I am promoting husband/wife marriage. Marriage is not for everyone.
It wasn't for you and your ex wife.
LOL!

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#2702 Feb 20, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Like the internet.
Leg lamp...what the heck are you talking about? So the internet and gay marriage are two modern western invention.....is that it...anything else you might want to add?

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#2703 Feb 20, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Logic fail.
Children are not married to their parents.
Never said they were, but thanks for asking.
When one or both are sterile due to age, operation, accident, etc. no amount of sex will result in children. People who have no ability to have children get married every day. People who have no ability to even have sex are also allowed to marry. Procreation has never been a requirement for marriage in the US.
Marriage in the U.S., prior to 2004 was a male female union of husband and wife. It was, and still is, presumed that husband and wife will consumate, and engage in "marital relations". While not a requirement, and there are couples who choose not, or cannot not, consumate, or procreate, they are exceptions to the rule. Never the less that does not change the expectations for, nor understanding of, marriage as a sexual union of husband and wife. There is no deep seated, historical, legal, cultural, and/or religious of marriage as simply a union of two persons regardless of gender compostition. That is a recent, revisionist concept of marriage.
In marriage, 2=2
3 or more does not equal two. It is something very different.
Most understand this by the time they reach first grade.
Most also understand the difference between boys and girls by the time they reach the first grade also. They also know, most do anyway, that they have a mommy and a daddy, that it took a mommy and daddy to make them.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#2704 Feb 20, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, allowing gay couples to participate under the same rules currently in effect does not change the present or future marriages of straight couples. All of the laws that determine what marriage is for them, remain the same.
The rules and language were changed for same sex couples, so the rules are no longer the same.
Changing the laws to allow multiple partners changes the laws that determine what marriage is for straight couples, in a wide variety of ways. It is not the same thing, but something very different, as you must surely know by now.
Removing conjugaliy as the foundation of marriage changes what marriage is for OPPOSITE SEX couples. Plural marriage maintains the conjugality of the marital relationship while increasing the number of participants. Surely you must know this by now.
Your argument is one of the same ones used to oppose inter-racial marriage. It fails the test of reason.
Your arguments is one of the same ones used to oppose plural marriage. Interacial marriage maintained the conjugality of he marital relationship. The opposition was based on the concept of "micengenation" of the race. Opponents did not want the races, certain races, not all racial combinations were banned, mxing. Ironic you would oppose the ban on racially integrated marriages to argue for gender segregated marriges.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#2705 Feb 20, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Denial is strong in this one. I believe he has already seen a couple other links that show same sex marriage is nothing new.
Splenda...splenda...splenda... (sigh)...I know that recognized same sex unions is not new, and there have been some scattered historical examples of such recognized union, as I have stated in numerous posts. The problem is when such examples are misinterpreted, as John Boswell did. Do I need to post links to sites debunking his claim of Church blessed same sex sexual union in Mideival Europe. Not every society that allowed, and/or tolerated same sex sexual behavior equated that with marriage. We both know this.
Did you see the Westboro Baptist Church brief to the Supreme Court? Even the rabidly anti-gay WBC admits same sex marriage was legally recognized before Noah. Of course they misuse the term "sodomize", but here is a quote from their legal brief: "Another Midrash says that males just didn’t sodomize other males, but that they signed ketobot (marriage contracts) legalizing these re-lationships."
And while there are many more resources, here are just a couple more:
"At times throughout history, same-sex relationships have enjoyed relative freedom within their respective places.
Evidence exists that same-sex marriages were tolerated in parts of Mesopotamia and ancient Egypt. Artifacts from Egypt, for example, show that same-sex relationships not only existed, but the discovery of a pharaonic tomb for such a couple shows their union was recognized by the kingdom. Meanwhile, accounts of the Israelites' departure for Canaan include their condemnation of Egyptian acceptance of same-sex practice. In actuality, same-sex marital practices and rituals are less known in Egypt compared to Mesopotamia, where documents exist for a variety of marital practices, including male lovers of kings and polyandry. None of the recorded laws of Mesopotamia, including the Code of Hammurabi, contain restrictions against same-sex unions despite the fact that marriages are otherwise well regulated. "
http://www.randomhistory.com/history-of-gay-m...
A book by the Dominican missionary and Prior, Jacques Goar (1601-1653), includes same sex ceremonies in a printed collection of Greek Orthodox prayer books,“Euchologion Sive Rituale Graecorum Complectens Ritus Et Ordines Divinae Liturgiae”(Paris, 1667).
Another book by Gerald of Wales (‘Geraldus Cambrensis’) recorded same gender Christian sanctified unions also took place in Ireland in the late 12th and early 13th centuries.
"Historical evidence, including legal documents and gravesites, can be interpreted as supporting the prevalence of homosexual relationships hundreds of years ago, said Allan Tulchin of Shippensburg University in Pennsylvania.
Gay Marriage Is As Old As History www.gaychristian101.com/Gay-Marriage.html
gay christian101....pull-leez...I noticed they promote John Boswell's work as, pardon the pun, gospel. So I guess I'm gonna have to link sites proving other wise.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#2706 Feb 20, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Gay Marriage Is As Old As History www.gaychristian101.com/Gay-Marriage.html
http://roadsfromemmaus.org/2012/05/11/church-...

There have been several postings online in the past few days of various articles claiming that the Christian Church at some period in history formerly sanctioned same-sex weddings and treated them just like marriages between a single man and a single woman, based mainly on the work of the late John Boswell. Someone even posted one of those articles in the comments section of my previous post. The one making the most rounds is called When Same-Sex Marriage Was a Christian Rite. These articles are served up as “gotchas” to unsuspecting Christians who were under the impression that Christian history is pretty unanimous about what Christian marriage is about.(Spoiler: Their impression is correct.)

Mind you, someone may reject the Church’s historic teaching on marriage. But there really are no legs to stand on when it comes to the claim that the Church used to teach that marriage could also be between two men or two women (or any other combination).(And note here that I mean the historic Church, which is Orthodoxy. But this would also include almost all churches that are more than about 100 years old.)

Anyway, there are numerous articles which thoroughly debunk Boswell’s work. His fellow historians didn’t take it seriously, and neither should you. The only people who do (and I really am not making this up) are those who either don’t know better or quite desperately want him to be right. Boswell himself was gay and the founder of the Lesbian and Gay Studies Center at Yale. He died of AIDS-related complications in 1994 at the age of 47. He was also a convert to Roman Catholicism from the Episcopal Church (despite his much greater similarity with the latter on sexual morality).

Anyway, the point of this post is not to invite debate (because for me, the matter really is settled, and there are a quadra-gazillion other places to debate these questions; as such, I am not turning on comments for this post), but rather to point out some of the several places online where one can read refutations of Boswell’s work, far better than anything I could put together. The slams, as they say, are dunked.

In the Case of John Boswell by Fr. Richard John Neuhaus (a Catholic convert from Lutheranism) examines the scholarly reception of Boswell’s work.

Gay Marriage: Reimaging Church History by Robin Darling Young is a detailed examination especially of the numerous specious translations in Boswell’s work (upon which his conclusions very much hang). Interesting in this piece is especially the reminiscence that its author experienced a same-sex union in an ancient church and was surprised to be told later by Boswell’s book that what she had experienced was actually a marriage. This is the first piece I ever read on this subject, and it packs a powerful punch.

Failed Attempt to Rewrite History by Fr. Patrick Viscuso is an examination specifically of the canonical and liturgical claims that Boswell makes and how they fail to square with the actual contexts of the rites being examined. Viscuso is a priest of the Greek Orthodox Church and a canonist specializing especially in marriage questions. He is also cited(!) in Boswell’s work.

Rewriting History to Serve the Gay Agenda by Marian Therese Horvat is a general review of Boswell’s Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe, especially focusing on what the author calls Boswell’s “advocacy scholarship.”

A Groom of One’s Own? by Brent D. Shaw shows how anachronistic and tendentious Boswell’s readings of documents are. Shaw is himself in favor of the “liberationist movements of our time,” but he concludes that “tinkering with the moral balance of the past is a disservice to the study of history and to the reform of society.”

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.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 9 min Pietro Armando 37,235
News Man Accused Of Firing Paintballs At Stockton Ga... 45 min Uncle Festus 47
News Sanders: Don't blame Islam for Orlando shooting 48 min ImFree2Choose 580
News Chicago Reacts to Orlando Shooting 55 min Fa-Foxy 8
News Obama: Notion that being armed would have saved... 59 min Dr Wu 889
News Extra security moves honorees to withdraw from ... 1 hr Here is what I 4
News Cabinet's Justine Greening reveals 'I'm in a ha... 1 hr Here is what I 2
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 3 hr Frankie Rizzo 12,944
More from around the web