Supreme Court Returns with Gay Marria...

Supreme Court Returns with Gay Marriage, Voting Rights and More in View

There are 39 comments on the WLTI-FM Syracuse story from Jan 7, 2013, titled Supreme Court Returns with Gay Marriage, Voting Rights and More in View. In it, WLTI-FM Syracuse reports that:

UPDATE: The Supreme Court announced Monday that it will hear the Prop 8 case: Hollingsworth v. Perry on March 26 and the DOMA case, United States v. Windsor on March 27.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at WLTI-FM Syracuse.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#22 Jan 8, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
I know, its part of you inability to be consistent...
Oh, brilliant argument. What's next, you're rubber and I'm glue?

What, exactly, am I supposed be "consistent" about here? Should I find a demographic to demonize, as JrEsq has? Would that be "consistent" enough for you?
straight shooter wrote:
how you take it is your problem, why we do it is for proper purposes...
Championing the mistreatment of your fellow human beings is never "proper".
straight shooter wrote:
no, plan as the law stands....
No thanks, but YOU can plan that we will CHANGE the law, as the legislative process allows.
straight shooter wrote:
thats the way it will be...
you dont get teh benfits...
Check my profile, I live in Washington State. We already DO get the benefits, thanks. And I'll continue to support the push for NATIONAL recognition.
straight shooter wrote:
and ay why do you reject CU's....
Why do YOU reject them? Go get a civil union for YOURSELF, if you think it sounds like such a good idea. Yeah, we don't see STRAIGHT people doing that, do we?

The ONLY reason to seek an entire separate, identical bureaucracy, which performs the exact same functions as the existing one, is segregation. If you want gay people to go through a different process to obtain the exact same rights that you enjoy, then you're simply unwilling to share a title equally with your fellow citizens.
straight shooter wrote:
all those reasons (your belief you are similarly a situated etc) have nothing to do with rights...it has to do with sameness....and you are not the same...you can take that as me saying you are worse, but that's your problem...saying the beatles are the best says NOTHING about the kinks, you are just crying and we" are tired of it...
No two people are the "same", but they're still all PEOPLE. You can PREFER one music group over another, but that doesn't mean that you BAN the others, to force EVERYONE to only listen to what YOU prefer.
straight shooter wrote:
YOU ARE FREE to go and live with, love and boink anyone you want, was that enough?
NO...
NO. We have loved ones and families to protect, JUST LIKE YOU DO. If you don't think that we're "worse", then you should recognize this same need in ALL loving couples, whether gay or straight.

You can boink whoever you want, too. You don't need marriage to enjoy that right. Is it enough for YOU? No, obviously not. You want to marry the person you choose to spend your life with. Why would you ask something different of someone else?
straight shooter wrote:
you need us to say you are the same, but you're not, so we won't say you are. Period.
I don't "need" you to say ANYTHING. I don't really give a diaper full of used oatmeal what YOU say about our equality. YOU aren't the one who administers marriage benefits. The government does that, so THAT'S who we're appealing to. YOU'RE free to run around the world screaming that gay people are different. Your opinion isn't law.
straight shooter wrote:
That you need it to mean you are worse is your problem...
That you don't recognize how many people DO mean this, shows how BLIND you are to the real problems. Kids are out there KILLING themselves, because of people who tell them that they're hated, defective, evil, worthless and unlovable. Kids are being told that not only do their fellow citizens feel that way, but even the very creator of the universe does, too. This is hateful and destructive talk, not to mention nonsense. As these kids grow up and become adults in society, it's important that they feel like equal and valued citizens, that their relationships are valued in the same way, that their legal contracts are equally honored, that they themselves are wanted and accepted.

Plenty of people are capable of feeling that. You don't have to, but I can't imagine why not.
straight shooter

Barre, VT

#23 Jan 8, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, brilliant argument. What's next, you're rubber and I'm glue?
.
I'll try that, we'll call it the race to the bottom of childish insults tack...
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>

Championing the mistreatment of your fellow human beings is never "proper".
It is not mistreatment to not encourage you like we do others...
That is your major logical flaw....

"Preserving this institution is not the same as "mere moral disapproval of an excluded group," Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 585 (O'Connor, J., concurring)"

to be cont'd
straight shooter

Barre, VT

#24 Jan 8, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>

Check my profile, I live in Washington State. We already DO get the benefits, thanks. And I'll continue to support the push for NATIONAL recognition.
for now...scotus is ruling....lets see next year...
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>

The ONLY reason to seek an entire separate, identical bureaucracy, which performs the exact same functions as the existing one, is segregation.
you are different. As soon as you grasp that the better....
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>

NO. We have loved ones and families to protect, JUST LIKE YOU DO..
just like polygamists do...
sing it to them...
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>

That you don't recognize how many people DO mean this, shows how BLIND you are to the real problems. Kids are out there KILLING themselves, because of people who tell them that they're hated, defective, evil, worthless and unlovable..
so are fat kids, ugly kids and just plain lamo's...why are you so special?
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
that their relationships are valued in the same way,.
they are not. The creation of life between two people is a significant thing that gays cannot do...
your relationship is DIFFERENT and so your rights will be too...

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#25 Jan 8, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
It is not mistreatment to not encourage you like we do others...
That is your major logical flaw....
Then why encourage civil unions? If CU's provide the very same rights, then it's the very same encouragement. It only means that you are "encouraging" a wall between us. This unnecessary segregation IS mistreatment.
straight shooter wrote:
"Preserving this institution is not the same as "mere moral disapproval of an excluded group," Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 585 (O'Connor, J., concurring)"
There is no threat to the institution of marriage. Are you unable to recognize the marriages of other couples there in Vermont? My parents are still married here in Washington, nothing needed "preserving" for that.

But "mere moral disapproval" is all we ever see. There CAN be more to preserving an institution, but it's never been part of THIS issue. The willingness to provide civil unions proves that no one gives a damn about preserving THAT institution, just as long as the icky gays are kept in their own little segregated corral.

It's pure fear-mongering for anyone to suggest that gay people will be destructive to society, or that we will threaten the "preservation" of marriage if we participate.
straight shooter wrote:
for now...scotus is ruling....lets see next year...
Fair enough, but I think that's what they said last fall, and before DADT fell, and before Massachusetts and all the rest...
straight shooter wrote:
you are different. As soon as you grasp that the better....
EVERYONE is different! YOU are different! We're ALL different! So what??
straight shooter wrote:
just like polygamists do...
No, just like YOU do, in a one-on-one equal partnership. Polygamists are usually men who want to build their own harem of women. My partner and I want an equal partnership of mutual respect and cooperation, not religious submission from a meek team of 17th century costume models.
straight shooter wrote:
sing it to them...
I don't see them singing ANYWHERE. Why aren't they speaking up in this issue? Why aren't they piggy-backing on our movement? Where is their advocacy voice?

Polygamy HAD its chance in this country, over a century ago, and lost. Look at the direction that gay rights are going today.
straight shooter wrote:
so are fat kids, ugly kids and just plain lamo's...why are you so special?
Remind me never to take humanitarian advice from someone who disparages "fat kids, ugly kids and just plain lamo's". Don't you think it's time to STOP singling ANY people out for such shallow reasons?

At least most of those other kids get some support from HOME, even if they don't get it elsewhere. Gay kids are quite often afraid of their own PARENTS and family members. Who should have to live like that?
straight shooter wrote:
they are not. The creation of life between two people is a significant thing that gays cannot do...
Many straight people cannot do it either. No one cares or hassles them about it. Their marriage is not annulled if they can't, or won't. Marriage is not about fertility, it's about couplehood. Those couples find other ways to become parents, if that's what they want. So do gay couples. Will banning their marriages STOP gay people from seeking to become parents? Not at all. It only stigmatizes those families, and leaves them without the protections that marriage is intended to provide to families. You expect our government to select some families for rejection, when there's no reason to.
straight shooter wrote:
your relationship is DIFFERENT and so your rights will be too...
What differences should exist in our rights? Describe what should be lacking in my rights, but present in yours. If you feel so strongly about this, it should be easy for you. If I were to accept civil unions, explain to me how they would differ from marriage, other than just in name alone.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#26 Jan 9, 2013
JrEsq wrote:
If SCOTUS understands it's role as the custodian of society, they will put an end to the antisocial concept of homosexual marriage.
At least TRY to make a little sense. How are marriage and family "antisocial"?

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#27 Jan 9, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
.
It is not mistreatment to not encourage you like we do others...
That is your major logical flaw....
"Preserving this institution is not the same as "mere moral disapproval of an excluded group," Lawrence, 539 U.S. at 585 (O'Connor, J., concurring)"
to be cont'd
If you want to harm certain families and their children by denying them the protections and benefits of legal marriage, you need to have a logical and rational state purpose for any laws that do so.

Can you provide any such rational and logical reasoning to harm gay people, their families, and their kids by denying them the ability to legally marry?

Prove that marriage is not good for couples and kids. Prove that gay youth will not benefit from this message of inclusiveness. Prove that gay couples marrying will prevent straight couples from marrying. Prove that marriage harms society.

Prove your case. Prove ANYTHING.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#28 Jan 9, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
....
you are different. As soon as you grasp that the better....
<quoted text>
just like polygamists do...
sing it to them...
<quoted text>
..........
Different does not mean "lesser". If we denied every group of people certain basic rights based on perceived differences, there would be chaos. You need to PROVE why a difference matters.

Give that one a try in this case. Prove your case against gay folks legally marrying.

And polygamists want to marry many. Gay and straight couples want to marry ONE. At least one at a time. Can you come up with a sensible comparison next time?

Try again.

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#29 Jan 9, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
<quoted text>
........
The creation of life between two people is a significant thing that gays cannot do...
your relationship is DIFFERENT and so your rights will be too...
Please provide a complete list of every state that bans legal marriage for all non-procreative couples. States where those who chose to have no children are barred from marriage, and those that ban marriage for the elderly and infertile.

Also, a list of states that prevent people from marrying unless their children are biologically related to both spouses. I haven't heard of the "blended family" ban, but I suppose you have.

Only verifiable links, please.

Thanks.
straight shooter

Barre, VT

#30 Jan 10, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
Then why encourage civil unions? If CU's provide the very same rights, then it's the very same encouragement. It only means that you are "encouraging" a wall between us. This unnecessary segregation IS mistreatment.
.
simple. You are not similarly situated and CU's can address issues related to your differences...like parentage....

so it is not mistreatment at all...
(that's your sense of entitlement talking)
straight shooter

Barre, VT

#31 Jan 10, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
Polygamists are usually men who want to build their own harem of women. My partner and I want an equal partnership of mutual respect and cooperation, not religious submission from a meek team of 17th century costume models.
Oh, I didn't realize cartoonesque stereotypes were valid reasons...
want me to use some of them on you?

consistency?
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>

Remind me never to take humanitarian advice from someone who disparages "fat kids, ugly kids and just plain lamo's". Don't you think it's time to STOP singling ANY people out for such shallow reasons?
Maybe its time to stop pretending to be outraged about things you know people were saying....
I mean, people are attacked for all kinds of reasons, why is orientation SPECIAL?
I would appreciate an answer to this, why is ORIENTATION a special reason to stop as to bullying?
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>

Many straight people cannot do it either. No one cares or hassles them about it.
.
again, minimal exceptions are not the same as an entire new class of people that do not fit the bill...
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>

What differences should exist in our rights? Describe what should be lacking in my rights, but present in yours.
All other things being equal, the couple that provides both a mom and dad should be preferred....the different institutions would speak to that...as well as a host of issues gay relationships have the straights don't...parentage for the non bio spouse, and I do not think you should get an assumption we get that both spouses are parents...since its literally impossible...

women are from venus, men are from mars, and that means nothing to your relationship...so, you are different...and you need to face that truth...

indeed many argue gays would make better parents, but guess what?

to be "better" you admit being "different"....
straight shooter

Barre, VT

#32 Jan 10, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
If you want to harm certain families and their children by denying them the protections and benefits of legal marriage,
if you want to harm dropouts by refusing them a student loan...
that's all you are saying...
I guess we don't give dropouts a loan based on animus... you other assumption, right?

We are not harming you, we are merely encouraging someone else....
they are not the same...
though you wish they were....
straight shooter

Barre, VT

#33 Jan 10, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Different does not mean "lesser".
indeed it can even mean better....
still you are "different"....
straight shooter

Barre, VT

#34 Jan 10, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Please provide a complete list of every state that bans legal marriage for all non-procreative couples. States where those who chose to have no children are barred from marriage, and those that ban marriage for the elderly and infertile.
Also, a list of states that prevent people from marrying unless their children are biologically related to both spouses. I haven't heard of the "blended family" ban, but I suppose you have.
Only verifiable links, please.
Thanks.
wait for it....

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#35 Jan 10, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
simple. You are not similarly situated and CU's can address issues related to your differences...like parentage....
How is that a "difference"? How do marriage rights CHANGE for anyone, once they become parents? There are PARENTAL rights, but that's a different animal. The large portion of marriages are applied to a couple when they have no children at all, at the beginning of their relationship. "Parentage" isn't a question.

Your answers are too vague. How, SPECIFICALLY, would CU's address "parentage" in ways that are different from how marriage addresses it? DOES marriage address parentage? Do ANY of the over 1000 rights associated with marriage change AT ALL when the couple becomes parents? Should a gay couple's rights change based on whether they are raising children, in regards to the legal recognition of their bond?

Marriage is about the COUPLE. It is a legal recognition of their mutual representation, giving them automatic power-of-attorney for each other, designating them as each other's heir and family. These rights and recognitions do not CHANGE simply because children become present.

There ARE rights associated with parentage, but they are not assigned at marriage, they are assigned when someone becomes a parent. They are not rescinded if a marriage fails.

These are two separate concepts. This is something that is too often forgotten, I think. Marriage and parenting are two different things. Attempts are often made to jumble them together in an effort to oppose marriage equality, but this is disingenuous.
straight shooter wrote:
so it is not mistreatment at all...
(that's your sense of entitlement talking)
Ah, "entitlement", the Right's buzzword of the moment. Why, American citizens expecting their government to equally represent them? Outrageous!

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#36 Jan 10, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
Oh, I didn't realize cartoonesque stereotypes were valid reasons...
want me to use some of them on you?
consistency?
Have you tried watching the news lately?

In fairness, if there are any polygamists out there who would like to make their case, and can show that they're NOT just trying to contruct their own personal little religious cult, complete with frightened, powerless followers, now's your chance to speak your piece.

Hello? Hello?

Well, I tried. Do YOU know any?

In seriousness though, I'm open to the idea of discussing legal recognition for relationships of more than two aduls. I'm not sure the government should be in the business of sanctioning who is and isn't a family. I think it would first be important to be sure it wasn't just a case of one man (always a man, where are the women who want 5 husbands?) trying to put himself into a position of power. There are many things like tax codes, inheritance laws, pensions, social security, etc etc, that would have to be reviewed to be sure people couldn't simply game the system by acquiring more spouses.

Better?
straight shooter wrote:
Maybe its time to stop pretending to be outraged about things you know people were saying....
I mean, people are attacked for all kinds of reasons, why is orientation SPECIAL?
I would appreciate an answer to this, why is ORIENTATION a special reason to stop as to bullying?
You really sound like you're supporting bullying in all it's forms. As if there should be a "special reason" to stop.

NO one should be bullied over all these trivial reasons, least of all children. Sexual orientation makes as good a starting point as any for that discussion. For those willing to have it, anyway.

Children ARE bullied for many reasons, that's true. But most of those kids can at least go HOME and find support. Gay kids often fear their very own PARENTS, and withdraw from being open and honest about who they are with their very own families. I did. It's not likely that you can understand what kind of private hell that is.
straight shooter wrote:
again, minimal exceptions are not the same as an entire new class of people that do not fit the bill...
We fit the bill just fine. Again, marriage is about the COUPLE. You are deliberately confusing marriage and parenting, in an attempt to squeeze gay people out.
straight shooter wrote:
All other things being equal, the couple that provides both a mom and dad should be preferred....the different institutions would speak to that...
Oh right, I forgot, that's why we BAN step-families and adoptive families and foster families.
straight shooter wrote:
as well as a host of issues gay relationships have the straights don't
A "host" is not a number. It's deliberately vague. Be specific.

Maybe you mean "issues" like paying bills? Mowing the lawn? Making dinner? Filing taxes? Ah yes, all those strange and alien issues that we gays have to deal with.
straight shooter wrote:
...parentage for the non bio spouse, and I do not think you should get an assumption we get that both spouses are parents...since its literally impossible...
If "marriage rights" and "parenting rights" were the same thing, you might have a point. But, they're not.
straight shooter wrote:
women are from venus, men are from mars, and that means nothing to your relationship...so, you are different...and you need to face that truth...
Holy cow, man, that's a BOOK TITLE. It has nothing to do with any of this. My reply is "The Wind in the Willows". And furthermore, "The Catcher in the Rye", so you need to face that truth!
straight shooter wrote:
indeed many argue gays would make better parents, but guess what?
to be "better" you admit being "different"....
Which just illustrates the xenophobia and discrimination inherent in your position. You just HAVE to separate yourself from people who are "different".
straight shooter

Barre, VT

#37 Jan 11, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
How, SPECIFICALLY, would CU's address "parentage" in ways that are different from how marriage addresses it? DOES marriage address parentage?!
yes. The law assumes a child born during a marriage is the natural child of both spouses...
are you suggesting we apply this to gays even though its a flat lie?
straight shooter

Barre, VT

#38 Jan 11, 2013
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not sure the government should be in the business of sanctioning who is and isn't a family..
this is where we disagree...
except not really since you WERE talking out of both sides of your mouth with polygamy...
EdmondWA wrote:
<quoted text>

You really sound like you're supporting bullying in all it's forms..
at what point are you when you make statements like this?

So, I see you support cancer....

see how you, and your side, try to paint your opposition?

FYI, this tactic only works on the folks who agree with you anyway...

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#39 Jan 11, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
yes. The law assumes a child born during a marriage is the natural child of both spouses...
What does that even mean? How does that address "rights"? How do marriage rights CHANGE for a couple if that isn't true? Because sometimes, it isn't true! Sometimes, two people marry, and one or both of them already HAVE children from previous partners. Does their marriage suffer a loss of rights, because of this fact? Not that I'm aware!

In what specific ways does "parentage" ALTER the list of rights that are granted with marriage? I think you're dodging answering this, because you know the correct answer is: it doesn't.
straight shooter wrote:
are you suggesting we apply this to gays even though its a flat lie?
I'm suggesting that you follow your own buzzword, and show some consistency. You don't apply any such nonsense rule to step families, or adoptive families, or foster families. The law makes no such "assumption" that those children are the natural offspring of both spouses. The law DOESN'T CARE. None of those arrangements CHANGE the rights that are granted to a married couple. Their marriage rights don't change if they have ZERO kids, if they raise their OWN kids, or if they raise someone ELSE'S kids.

A person, or a couple, may gain certain rights and benefits if they HAVE kids, but that's even true for single parents. There are certain rights and benefits that go with "parenting", and DIFFERENT rights and benefits that go with "marriage". You can't settle this by blurring "parenting" with "marriage" in some strange attempt to make them inseparable. They are often related, but not always, and not inseparably.

I always feel like people in your position are under the impression that if you stop gay people from legally marrying, that this will also somehow stop gay couples from raising children. But it won't.

“Unconvinced”

Since: Nov 09

Seattle, WA

#40 Jan 11, 2013
straight shooter wrote:
this is where we disagree...
I gave you no position to disagree with. I said I wasn't sure about it. Perhaps the government SHOULD be in that business, perhaps it should NOT. Either way, the government IS in that business, we are not going to change that.
straight shooter wrote:
except not really since you WERE talking out of both sides of your mouth with polygamy...
I think I was clear. I could support the idea of plural marriages, IF it can be shown that it isn't some abusive, power-hungry nut building his own cult.

Now, if I'm mischaracterizing polygamy, and there are polygamists out there who feel that they can make a BETTER case for their relationships than national news does, then they are certainly invited to join this discussion and add their voices. But they aren't DOING THAT. I don't see any. They certainly don't need anyone else PRETENDING to be their advocate, insisting that I must include their interests in my fight.

Most people fall in love at some point. Most with someone of the opposite gender, some with someone of the same gender. But pretty much ALL of them stop THERE, and seek to build their life together with THAT other person. Adding a third (or more) usually upsets the balance. It introduces jealousy issues which make the relationship difficult for everyone involved. Sure, SOME arrangements have overcome all that and found balance, but if THEY want to come and present their case, let THEM do it. Plurality is a separate issue from whether a person may choose a spouse AT ALL.
straight shooter wrote:
at what point are you when you make statements like this?
So, I see you support cancer....
see how you, and your side, try to paint your opposition?
FYI, this tactic only works on the folks who agree with you anyway...
None of this made any cogent sense, so I'm not sure how to reply. Were we talking about cancer?

Your earlier question was: why is ORIENTATION a special reason to stop as to bullying?

All I said was, that to even ASK a question like that, makes you sound like you NEED a "special reason", and it makes me wonder what WOULD qualify as a good enough reason for you to oppose bullying?

Now sure, that's just me reading into it what I think it SOUNDS like you're saying, and I pointed out as much. But what does that have to do with cancer?

Look at it this way. If you and I had met on a weight-loss site, and we were discussing bullying of fat people, would you ask me why WEIGHT was a "special reason" to stop bullying? If we had met on, let's say a plastic surgery site, would you want an answer as to why UGLINESS was a good reason to stop bullying?

All the reasons that people are bullied--weight, looks, sexual orientation, having glasses, being poor, being red-headed, having braces, etc--are BAD reasons. Bullying's just bad overall. I'm sure most people would agree with that.

But we DIDN'T meet at any of those other sites. I seriously doubt that anyone on those sites are even discussing WHETHER that kind of bullying should stop. Only when it comes to sexual orientation do you run into people who feel that this IS a good reason to continue bullying. Only with sexual orientation do find people actively seeking excuses to minimalize, marginalize, villainize, stigmatize... you get the idea.

I think this elevates sexual orientation to a level with racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, and the like. Grown-up bullying rather than childhood bullying.

Also, consider this from my point of view. When YOU made a list of reasons why people are bullied, you ended it with "just plain lamo's". What am I supposed to take away from THAT? I don't know what a "plain lamo" is, and I couldn't imagine justifying using such a description as a reason to make someone's life harder. What am I truly supposed to think is your opinion on bullying, when I discover that you feel justified in describing people that way?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

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.

US News Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 1 min Dr Guru 222,648
News Trump, aiming to widen support, makes pitch to ... 1 min Quirky 73
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 min Yeah 1,419,669
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 2 min LeDuped 239,694
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 5 min positronium 393,342
News Trump Isn't Bluffing, He'll Deport 11 Million P... 6 min woodtick57 7,918
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 8 min THE LONE WORKER 205,197
News News 14 Mins Ago Trump rebukes racism claims as... 36 min gwww 111
More from around the web