Lesbian couple in gay marriage case prepares for Supreme Court decision

Full story: Fox News 1,568
Big change is coming to the lives of the lesbian couple at the center of the fight for same-sex marriage in California no matter how the Supreme Court decides their case. Full Story

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#1257 May 12, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I have stated my opinions repeatedly.
(See the resemblance to Bruce now?)
Bruce Willis's crack, yes.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#1258 May 12, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.harvard-jlpp.com/wp-content/
uploads/2011/08/GeorgeFinal.pd f
Your link is an interesting opinion piece. However it starts out with multiple logical fallacies: a false dichotomy of two views of marriage (when more than two actually exist) and begging the question (by presuming the conjugal view of marriage championed by the authors is what "real marriage" is without any proof of such for purposes of evaluating their subsequent arguments). The conjugal view is simply not a universal norm across all times and cultures despite the authors erroneous assumptions otherwise.

Further, the authors erroneously seem to think explaining why, in their view, an equal protection claim by gays is not comparable to anti-miscegenation laws disposes of the need to address judicial review altogether. Which is rather disappointing since one of the authors purports to be a Professor of Jurisprudence at an Ivy League university.

I can certainly understand why this paper appeals to people like you, but it doesn't change the fact it's really nothing more than an editorial opinion masquerading as scholarly research.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#1259 May 12, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
<quoted text>
Apparently your moniker is a misnomer because you are not grounded in reality.
Apparently you're ignorant since "terra firm" doesn't literally mean "grounded in reality"
Pietro Armando wrote:
Remember SSM is still a novelty, all of the collective body of laws, including case law, throughout the country, since the founding of the republic, deals with the union of husband and wife, including the sexual aspects of that relationship. Although there is no legal requirement to do so, the law does presume a married couple consummate their marriage, conception is a natural byproduct of coitus.
Sorry, but the law is based on what is written in statutes, not what is presumed. Why do you think so many states went to the effort of defining marriage by law or constitutional amendment if all that was required was referencing what had "always been" since the founding?
Pietro Armando wrote:
Failure to consummate the marriage is grounds for annulment in some states. A SSM has grounds for annulment built in. Now, that would be an interesting court case.
The key point being "some states". Plus modern dictionaries do not define "sexual intercourse" or "coitus" as exclusively penile/vaginal penetration. So gays can in fact consummate their marriages. Just because you willingly choose to live in the 1950's doesn't mean all citizens are required to.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#1260 May 12, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I have refuted you every time.
In your dreams doesn't count.
KiMare wrote:
A ss couple will never be or have kin in reality.
Actually they do both legally and in reality. Unlike the fiction of your "lesbian twin sister".
KiMare wrote:
That is not my 'beliefs or religion', it is simple reality.
Which is not supported by facts or law. Thereby making it your personal alternate reality at best.
KiMare wrote:
Smirk
(See the resemblance to Bruce now?)
Not when you have to suck in so much gut, no.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#1261 May 12, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
Your link is an interesting opinion piece. However it starts out with multiple logical fallacies: a false dichotomy of two views of marriage (when more than two actually exist) and begging the question (by presuming the conjugal view of marriage championed by the authors is what "real marriage" is without any proof of such for purposes of evaluating their subsequent arguments). The conjugal view is simply not a universal norm across all times and cultures despite the authors erroneous assumptions otherwise.
Further, the authors erroneously seem to think explaining why, in their view, an equal protection claim by gays is not comparable to anti-miscegenation laws disposes of the need to address judicial review altogether. Which is rather disappointing since one of the authors purports to be a Professor of Jurisprudence at an Ivy League university.
I can certainly understand why this paper appeals to people like you, but it doesn't change the fact it's really nothing more than an editorial opinion masquerading as scholarly research.
Yeah, I figured you'd disagree.

People 'like you'? You mean people who have their feet planted on terra firma?

How do you think it got into the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Review? Must not have talked to you first, right?

Smirk.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#1262 May 12, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
In your dreams doesn't count.
<quoted text>
Actually they do both legally and in reality. Unlike the fiction of your "lesbian twin sister".
<quoted text>
Which is not supported by facts or law. Thereby making it your personal alternate reality at best.
<quoted text>
Not when you have to suck in so much gut, no.
A ss couple will never be or have kin in reality.

You can kick and scream all you want, but no one can change those facts.

Moreover, your partner and you will never be the same as marriage. It is simply a fact of reality.

Did you know that obesity is a tendency for lesbians? I think the lesbian in me is why I have to suck in my gut.

SMirk.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#1263 May 12, 2013
The aim of the marriage (same-sex couples) bill is to ensure that all couples enjoy equal marriage rights. Some elements of legal asymmetry remain, however, under the legislation.
Those who draft the parliamentary bills have been unable to define what constitutes consummation of a same-sex union. Consequently there is no provision for divorce on the grounds of non-consummation of a gay marriage.
That problem also means that same-sex couples who wish to divorce will not be able to cite adultery with someone of the same sex – the civil servants similarly struggled to find a definition of adultery between two men or two women.
Adultery will, nonetheless, be a permitted grounds for divorce if it follows sexual intercourse between one of the couple and someone of the opposite sex. That, at least, is consistent with existing marriage laws: if a man decides he is gay and leaves his wife for a man, she can divorce him for unreasonable behaviour but not adultery, which is defined as sexual intercourse.

http://m.guardiannews.com/society/2013/feb/05...
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
Apparently you're ignorant since "terra firm" doesn't literally mean "grounded in reality"
<quoted text>
Sorry, but the law is based on what is written in statutes, not what is presumed. Why do you think so many states went to the effort of defining marriage by law or constitutional amendment if all that was required was referencing what had "always been" since the founding?
<quoted text>
The key point being "some states". Plus modern dictionaries do not define "sexual intercourse" or "coitus" as exclusively penile/vaginal penetration. So gays can in fact consummate their marriages. Just because you willingly choose to live in the 1950's doesn't mean all citizens are required to.
Gay marriage: some legal inequalities will remain
Gay couples will not be able to divorce on grounds of non-consummation or adultery with someone of same sex.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#1264 May 12, 2013
KiMare wrote:
Yeah, I figured you'd disagree.
People 'like you'? You mean people who have their feet planted on terra firma?
No, conservatives who hold your views regarding marriage.
KiMare wrote:
How do you think it got into the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Review?
It's a student edited journal that exists in part to develop:

"...the writing, researching, and editing skills of each staff member from the beginning of 1L year and continuing through all three years of law school. In collaboration with our sister organization, the Harvard Federalist Society, we provide guidance and advice on finding summer jobs with law firms, public interest groups, and the government. We also guide members through the judicial clerkship application process, and hold fun social events throughout the school year.

link: http://www.harvard-jlpp.com/about/

The article obviously fits with the journal's goal of being "the nation’s leading forum for conservative and libertarian legal scholarship". Plus, the authors undoubtedly complied with the journal's rather modest submission requirements:

"The Journal welcomes the submission of articles and book reviews. Each manuscript should be typed double-spaced, preferably in the Times New Roman 12-point typeface. Submissions should include the author’s CV as well as a cover letter with a word count and short description of the manuscript. The Journal prefers submissions via ExpressO. If necessary, authors may also send manuscripts submitted in duplicate to the address below.

Our address:
1541 Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge, MA 02138

Our email:
JLPP@mail.law.harvard.edu

The Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy is published three times annually by the Harvard Society for Law & Public Policy, Inc. Views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Society or of its officers, directors, editors, members, or staff."

link: http://www.harvard-jlpp.com/submission

Note the disclaimer that articles "do not necessarily reflect the views" of the the Harvard society that publishes the journal. Which places the contents of the journal in the realm of opinion (even if informed by research) rather than scientific inquiry.
KiMare wrote:
Must not have talked to you first, right?
My local newspaper doesn't consult me when it publishes editorial opinions either. That doesn't make it or this journal any less a purveyor of opinions.
KiMare wrote:
Smirk.
Yawn

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#1265 May 12, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
A ss couple will never be or have kin in reality.
You can kick and scream all you want, but no one can change those facts.
Asserting your personal opinion as fact doesn't make it so. In fact, the law disagrees with you.
KiMare wrote:
Moreover, your partner and you will never be the same as marriage.
And yet I'm no differently situated than an infertile heterosexual couple. Nice to know what you really think of their marriage. So we've established your contempt for gays, infertile heterosexuals and anyone that adopts children. Any other groups you consider too inferior for your self-exalted view of marriage?
KiMare wrote:
It is simply a fact of reality.
As it's simply a fact a great number of heterosexuals are emotionally, mentally and/or financially unfit to procreate. Just because they can, doesn't mean they should. Yet states not only refrain from infringing their fundamental right of marriage, the spend billions of taxpayer dollars attempting to clean up the aftermath of their irresponsibility and selfishness.
KiMare wrote:
Did you know that obesity is a tendency for lesbians? I think the lesbian in me is why I have to suck in my gut.
It's more likely an emotional eating response to unresolved guilt for having cannibalistically murdered your twin sister in utero.
KiMare wrote:
SMirk.
Belch.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#1266 May 12, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
No, conservatives who hold your views regarding marriage.
<quoted text>
It's a student edited journal that exists in part to develop:
"...the writing, researching, and editing skills of each staff member from the beginning of 1L year and continuing through all three years of law school. In collaboration with our sister organization, the Harvard Federalist Society, we provide guidance and advice on finding summer jobs with law firms, public interest groups, and the government. We also guide members through the judicial clerkship application process, and hold fun social events throughout the school year.
link: http://www.harvard-jlpp.com/about/
The article obviously fits with the journal's goal of being "the nation’s leading forum for conservative and libertarian legal scholarship". Plus, the authors undoubtedly complied with the journal's rather modest submission requirements:
"The Journal welcomes the submission of articles and book reviews. Each manuscript should be typed double-spaced, preferably in the Times New Roman 12-point typeface. Submissions should include the author’s CV as well as a cover letter with a word count and short description of the manuscript. The Journal prefers submissions via ExpressO. If necessary, authors may also send manuscripts submitted in duplicate to the address below.
Our address:
1541 Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge, MA 02138
Our email:
JLPP@mail.law.harvard.edu
The Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy is published three times annually by the Harvard Society for Law & Public Policy, Inc. Views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Society or of its officers, directors, editors, members, or staff."
link: http://www.harvard-jlpp.com/submission
Note the disclaimer that articles "do not necessarily reflect the views" of the the Harvard society that publishes the journal. Which places the contents of the journal in the realm of opinion (even if informed by research) rather than scientific inquiry.
<quoted text>
My local newspaper doesn't consult me when it publishes editorial opinions either. That doesn't make it or this journal any less a purveyor of opinions.
<quoted text>
Yawn
the authors;

http://www.theblaze.com/author/sherif-girgis/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_P._George

http://www.heritage.org/about/staff/a/ryan-an...

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#1267 May 12, 2013
Pietro Armando wrote:
The aim of the marriage (same-sex couples) bill is to ensure that all couples enjoy equal marriage rights. Some elements of legal asymmetry remain, however, under the legislation.
Those who draft the parliamentary bills have been unable to define what constitutes consummation of a same-sex union. Consequently there is no provision for divorce on the grounds of non-consummation of a gay marriage.
That problem also means that same-sex couples who wish to divorce will not be able to cite adultery with someone of the same sex – the civil servants similarly struggled to find a definition of adultery between two men or two women.
Adultery will, nonetheless, be a permitted grounds for divorce if it follows sexual intercourse between one of the couple and someone of the opposite sex. That, at least, is consistent with existing marriage laws: if a man decides he is gay and leaves his wife for a man, she can divorce him for unreasonable behaviour but not adultery, which is defined as sexual intercourse.
http://m.guardiannews.com/society/2013/feb/05...
It would appear Britain's civil servants are singularly incompetent if they can't define consummation or adultery between same sex partners. Of course the implication of that is they don't consider anal or oral sex to be either consummation or adultery among heterosexuals. So by that definition, Bill Clinton really didn't have sex with Monica Lewinsky or commit adultery. And yet Hillary was upset; go figure.

Is that how you feel too, Pietro? You wouldn't care if your wife gave bj's to every man within a one square mile radius of your home because that's neither sex or adultery?
Pietro Armando wrote:
Gay marriage: some legal inequalities will remain
Gay couples will not be able to divorce on grounds of non-consummation or adultery with someone of same sex.
Well, the US isn't Britain and as you pointed out previously, not all states even address the topic of consummation as grounds for divorce or annulment. Inconsistencies have always existed in marriage laws between states, Pietro; that doesn't prove any point.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#1268 May 12, 2013
KiMare wrote:
Appealing to authority? Really? No wonder you loved their logical fallacy-riddled published opinion.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#1269 May 13, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
Appealing to authority? Really? No wonder you loved their logical fallacy-riddled published opinion.
First, when addressing an issue about responsibility, you do appeal to authority.

However, I was addressing your slander of the validity of the article. Any one of them are individually fully qualified to address the situation, and far from 'students'. It was not an appeal to authority.

Your misrepresentations about this only validate your lack of qualification to judge anything as 'fallacy-riddled'.

Why does a legitimate cause need your gay twirl deceit to debate?

Smirk.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#1270 May 13, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
It would appear Britain's civil servants are singularly incompetent if they can't define consummation or adultery between same sex partners. Of course the implication of that is they don't consider anal or oral sex to be either consummation or adultery among heterosexuals. So by that definition, Bill Clinton really didn't have sex with Monica Lewinsky or commit adultery. And yet Hillary was upset; go figure.
Is that how you feel too, Pietro? You wouldn't care if your wife gave bj's to every man within a one square mile radius of your home because that's neither sex or adultery?
<quoted text>
Well, the US isn't Britain and as you pointed out previously, not all states even address the topic of consummation as grounds for divorce or annulment. Inconsistencies have always existed in marriage laws between states, Pietro; that doesn't prove any point.
You clearly don't know the definition of 'cosummation'.

By law, any relationship is not considered marriage if it is not consummated. A ss couple can never consummate a marriage. A fact not lost on any lawyer, even if a particular state does not directly address it.

Snicker.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#1271 May 13, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
First, when addressing an issue about responsibility, you do appeal to authority.
It was an article about marriage policy not "responsibility".
KiMare wrote:
However, I was addressing your slander of the validity of the article.
I never stated the article lacked "validity". I stated it was an opinion. It was obviously researched based on the citations and other scholarly trappings included but it stilled employed logical fallacies from the very first page. Just because you happen to agree with something doesn't mean you drop objectivity altogether and let yourself be blinded to its shortcomings. The article is simply an opinion, not unquestionable "truth" or fact.
KiMare wrote:
Any one of them are individually fully qualified to address the situation, and far from 'students'.
I didn't call them students; I stated the journal was edited by students. But the article itself stated two of the three authors were doctoral candidates which indeed does make them students, not that my criticism of the article stems from that fact. Further, the authors are hardly the only people "qualified to address the situation" so their view is simply one of many and not binding or indisputable.
KiMare wrote:
It was not an appeal to authority.
Really? Your links summarizing the authors education, work history and achievements prove otherwise.
KiMare wrote:
Your misrepresentations about this only validate your lack of qualification to judge anything as 'fallacy-riddled'.
I didn't misrepresent anything. Don't blame me for you poor reading comprehension that led you to erroneously conclude I called the authors "students". And It doesn't require a doctoral degree to understand when one asserts something as fact that isn't and then uses it to evaluate and dismiss other positions that one is engaging in logical fallacies.
KiMare wrote:
Why does a legitimate cause need your gay twirl deceit to debate?
That cause has been winning in court based on the merits of the legal arguments, not "twirl" or "deceit". The arguments of your authors have not been swaying any legal minds of late, perhaps because, as I pointed out, they haven't framed their arguments to address the requirements of judicial review applied to equal protection and due process cases.
KiMare wrote:
Smirk.
Perhaps if you breathed normally rather than vainly engaging in gut sucking your face wouldn't appear to be smirking so frequently.

“abstractions of thought...”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#1272 May 13, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You clearly don't know the definition of 'cosummation'.
On the contrary, I do know the definition of "consummation" and of "sexual intercourse" and of "coitus", none of which limit the definition to only penile/vaginal penetration.
KiMare wrote:
By law, any relationship is not considered marriage if it is not consummated.
Actually, that's not true. The law varies by state but most states recognize the validity of a marriage if one or both participants are impotent or otherwise unable to consummate the marriage as long as that information is disclosed to the other party prior to the marriage in order for the party to provide informed consent. Some states allow lack of consummation as ground for annulment of the marriage; others allow it as ground for divorce. Still others don't address consummation at all with regards to annulment of divorce.

Illinois law is an example of where the inability to consummate a marriage is grounds for annulment only if the other partner was unaware of this inability at the time of the marriage ceremony. Link: http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.as...
KiMare wrote:
A ss couple can never consummate a marriage. A fact not lost on any lawyer, even if a particular state does not directly address it.
That's also incorrect since "consummation" is not solely defined as penile/vaginal penetration. You seem to be living in the early 20th century and not the 21st century where laws and definitions of words have evolved with society.
KiMare wrote:
Snicker.
I'm sure others snicker at your ignorance too.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#1273 May 13, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
It was an article about marriage policy not "responsibility".
<quoted text>
I never stated the article lacked "validity". I stated it was an opinion. It was obviously researched based on the citations and other scholarly trappings included but it stilled employed logical fallacies from the very first page. Just because you happen to agree with something doesn't mean you drop objectivity altogether and let yourself be blinded to its shortcomings. The article is simply an opinion, not unquestionable "truth" or fact.
<quoted text>
I didn't call them students; I stated the journal was edited by students. But the article itself stated two of the three authors were doctoral candidates which indeed does make them students, not that my criticism of the article stems from that fact. Further, the authors are hardly the only people "qualified to address the situation" so their view is simply one of many and not binding or indisputable.
<quoted text>
Really? Your links summarizing the authors education, work history and achievements prove otherwise.
<quoted text>
I didn't misrepresent anything. Don't blame me for you poor reading comprehension that led you to erroneously conclude I called the authors "students". And It doesn't require a doctoral degree to understand when one asserts something as fact that isn't and then uses it to evaluate and dismiss other positions that one is engaging in logical fallacies.
<quoted text>
That cause has been winning in court based on the merits of the legal arguments, not "twirl" or "deceit". The arguments of your authors have not been swaying any legal minds of late, perhaps because, as I pointed out, they haven't framed their arguments to address the requirements of judicial review applied to equal protection and due process cases.
<quoted text>
Perhaps if you breathed normally rather than vainly engaging in gut sucking your face wouldn't appear to be smirking so frequently.
You are not terra firma, you are full of it.

What is the point of saying the publication is edited by students if you aren't trying to demean it?

The bottom line is you have no valid response to the points made, except to attack the writers.

Those points are being argued in court, but more important, they simply state irrefutable facts.

The bottom line is this. A ss couple will never ever be more than a sterile duplicated half of marriage. Kin by paper and never by blood. A barren stub on any family tree.

Smile.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#1274 May 13, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
On the contrary, I do know the definition of "consummation" and of "sexual intercourse" and of "coitus", none of which limit the definition to only penile/vaginal penetration.
<quoted text>
Actually, that's not true. The law varies by state but most states recognize the validity of a marriage if one or both participants are impotent or otherwise unable to consummate the marriage as long as that information is disclosed to the other party prior to the marriage in order for the party to provide informed consent. Some states allow lack of consummation as ground for annulment of the marriage; others allow it as ground for divorce. Still others don't address consummation at all with regards to annulment of divorce.
Illinois law is an example of where the inability to consummate a marriage is grounds for annulment only if the other partner was unaware of this inability at the time of the marriage ceremony. Link: http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.as...
<quoted text>
That's also incorrect since "consummation" is not solely defined as penile/vaginal penetration. You seem to be living in the early 20th century and not the 21st century where laws and definitions of words have evolved with society.
<quoted text>
I'm sure others snicker at your ignorance too.
A simple solution would be for you to post the definition of consummate, instead of giving your opinion.

Why don't you?

Smirk.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#1275 May 13, 2013
Terra Firma wrote:
<quoted text>
On the contrary, I do know the definition of "consummation" and of "sexual intercourse" and of "coitus", none of which limit the definition to only penile/vaginal penetration.
<quoted text>
Actually, that's not true. The law varies by state but most states recognize the validity of a marriage if one or both participants are impotent or otherwise unable to consummate the marriage as long as that information is disclosed to the other party prior to the marriage in order for the party to provide informed consent. Some states allow lack of consummation as ground for annulment of the marriage; others allow it as ground for divorce. Still others don't address consummation at all with regards to annulment of divorce.
Illinois law is an example of where the inability to consummate a marriage is grounds for annulment only if the other partner was unaware of this inability at the time of the marriage ceremony. Link: http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.as...
<quoted text>
That's also incorrect since "consummation" is not solely defined as penile/vaginal penetration. You seem to be living in the early 20th century and not the 21st century where laws and definitions of words have evolved with society.
<quoted text>
I'm sure others snicker at your ignorance too.
A logical solution would be to simply post the definition of consummation instead of giving your opinion.

Why don't you?

Smirk.

“Busting Kimare's”

Since: Feb 13

Clitty

#1277 May 13, 2013
con•sum•ma•tion (&#716;k&#594;n s&#601;&#712;me&#6 18; &#643;&#601;n)

n.
1. the act of consummating.
2. the state of being consummated.
3. end; goal.
[1350–1400; << Latin]
Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary,© 2010 K Dictionaries Ltd. Copyright 2005, 1997, 1991 by Random House, Inc. All rights reserved.

Please notice the absence of penis/vagina penetration.

Troll on, Kuntmary.

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.

California Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 53 min SpaceBlues 50,475
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 1 hr Rogue Scholar 05 183,936
Gay marriage (Mar '13) 2 hr gjest 57,312
what does this mean 7 hr Adolph 3
Pharmacy Robbed of Pills 12 hr Christshariahns 5
Woman in India sues Uber after reporting driver... 15 hr Michael4991 1
Amgen Tour of California route to traverse Neva... 15 hr Sylvia 1
More from around the web