Duck-a-Muck

|

Julian Sanchez's earlier post points to some predictably outraged (and inane) conservative responses to yesterday's gay marriage ruling in Massachusetts.

For several years now, I had always assumed that the real reason conservatives hated gay marriage is that, if heterosexual marriage is any guide, it will inevitably lead to gay divorce–and we all know that divorce is the source of all that is bad and rotten and awful in this oh-so-fallen world, right?

But after watching The O'Reilly Factor last night, I suspect a different motivation: deep-seated urges toward trans-species bliss that lurk within conservative hearts. How else to explain that conservatives inevitably, compulsively bring up man-on-beast action whenever the subject of gay marriage is broached? It's almost as if laws defining marriage as the "sacred institution between a man and a woman" are the last defense against their own unspeakable impulses.

Here's Bill grilling his guest, Wendy Murphy, a former "lawyer of the year" in the Bay State:

O'REILLY: …If you're going to open the floodgate that marriage is no longer between a man and a woman, which is what this court did, found a way to do it, then you have to let everybody get married. The commune people can get married. The people who want to marry a duck can come in, all right. You can't…

MURPHY: That's so absurd.

O'REILLY: No. If I want to marry a duck…

MURPHY: No, Bill.

O'REILLY: … I have a right to…

MURPHY: Bill, the…

O'REILLY: … marry the duck, all right?

MURPHY: No, the basis for the…

O'REILLY: … and leave my house to the duck.

For the record, O'Reilly spent a good amount of the segment talking about shacking up with the fictional "the McGuire twins, the sisters McGuire," all of which no doubt led to interesting post-show chitchat with the real Mrs. O'Reilly.

But O'Reilly–and conservatives who fret that yesterday's ruling will open the floodgates to men marrying goldfish–can relax. It's highly unlikely that Modern Bride will be carrying a sheep on the cover anytime soon. Marriage is, after all, a consensual contract, and very few birds and fish–and even mammals–can say "I do."

Panicky visions of parents marrying their children, brothers marrying their sisters, dogs marrying cats, etc, are equally implausible. Those sorts of kinks just aren't that widespread for any number of reasons, including biological and sociological ones. Species tend to pick one another for mates; and, pace Faulkner et al, people raised in familial proximity typically don't get all hot and horny for one another. The incest taboo reflects reality rather than restrains it.

A more likely scenario involves plural marriage (among human beings) which, as Eugene Volokh convincingly claims, could eventually be sanctioned by the logic in the Massachusetts ruling. I doubt that option would be all that popular, but would it be such a bad thing? As long as it's consensual, I don't see the harm. Unless it caused O'Reilly to abandon his baby ducklings and move in the sisters McGuire.

NEXT: Rush Out

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Forgive me, for I have not been paying much attention, but what do conservatives usually come back with when their rediculous straw-duck argument is refuted?

    🙂

  2. something about perversion, i’m sure.

    it’s always about perversion with this bunch.

  3. when our beastiality arguments fail, we follow the gratious Dr. Dobson of Focus on the Family, think of the children.

    When gay marriage is allowed, children grow up in disfunctional homes. 2 dads is not good for the children.

    We would much rather prefer the tried an true, broken home, single parent, low income method.

  4. What is happening in our culture is an unraveling of all we once considered normal. – Cal Thomas via Marriage Redefined
    .

    Ah yes, the clarion-call of social conservatives… I am sure there were Cal-look-alikes arguing the same line when the practice of burning witches became unfashionable.

  5. It’s absurd to marry a duck, as pointed out. The real question is whether it is ok to marry intelligent aliens or robots (should any ever exist). I’ll take a stand now and say yes.

    On the subject of group marriages, which I also favor, I should point out that they are not likely to ever be common. Think about how hard it is finding that perfect person to spend the rest of you life with, and then think about how hard it is for several persons to find those perfect persons to find their lives with. It increases and order of magnitude with each additional person. I’m not sure group marriages would increase or decrease divorce though. Would you be more likely to get a divorce if you disliked one of several spouses or less likely?

  6. And another Godboy issues forth like that of a donkey:

    Massachusetts manhandles marriage

  7. Why not the laissez faire approach to marraige? 🙂

  8. Why a duck?

  9. Obviously Mark, because it rhymes my man, because it rhymes … also, there is an old redneck saying, “if it quacks like a duck,” referring to effeminate men…

  10. Ducks are hot!

  11. “If the duck is deceased is it then okay to, you know? Since I wouldn’t have to get its permission?” – Bill O’Really.

    🙂

  12. Maybe they saw the movie “Howard the Duck” one to many times…..

  13. As soon as the twelve breasted alien women arrive I’m marrying several.

    Mudflap

  14. You have to figure that O’Reilly is going to take a ribbing about his taste in ducks and who are the McGuire twins?

    Derb wants to marry his sister now that the Massachusetts court has legalized gay marriage.

    O’Reilly is really into ducks.

    This was a big day for the sexually repressed to come out of the closet! 🙂

  15. CROWD:
    A witch! A witch! A witch! A witch! We’ve found a witch! A witch! A witch! A witch! A witch! We’ve got a witch! A witch! A witch! Burn her! Burn her! Burn her! We’ve found a witch! We’ve found a witch! A witch! A witch! A witch!

    VILLAGER #1:
    We have found a witch. May we burn her?

    CROWD:
    Burn her! Burn! Burn her! Burn her!

    BEDEVERE:
    How do you know she is a witch?

    VILLAGER #2:
    She looks like one.

    CROWD:
    Right! Yeah! Yeah!

    BEDEVERE:
    Bring her forward.

    WITCH:
    I’m not a witch. I’m not a witch.

    BEDEVERE:
    Uh, but you are dressed as one.

    WITCH:
    They dressed me up like this.

    CROWD:
    Augh, we didn’t! We didn’t…

    WITCH:
    And this isn’t my nose. It’s a false one.

    BEDEVERE:
    Well?

    VILLAGER #1:
    Well, we did do the nose.

    BEDEVERE:
    The nose?

    VILLAGER #1:
    And the hat, but she is a witch!

    VILLAGER #2:
    Yeah!

    CROWD:
    We burn her! Right! Yeaaah! Yeaah!

    BEDEVERE:
    Did you dress her up like this?

    VILLAGER #1:
    No!

    VILLAGER #2 and 3:
    No. No.

    VILLAGER #2:
    No.

    VILLAGER #1:
    No.

    VILLAGERS #2 and #3:
    No.

    VILLAGER #1:
    Yes.

    VILLAGER #2:
    Yes.

    VILLAGER #1:
    Yes. Yeah, a bit.

    VILLAGER #3:
    A bit.

    VILLAGERS #1 and #2:
    A bit.

    VILLAGER #3:
    A bit.

    VILLAGER #1:
    She has got a wart.

    RANDOM:
    [cough]

    BEDEVERE:
    What makes you think she is a witch?

    VILLAGER #3:
    Well, she turned me into a newt.

    BEDEVERE:
    A newt?

    VILLAGER #3:
    I got better.

    VILLAGER #2:
    Burn her anyway!

    VILLAGER #1:
    Burn!

    CROWD:
    Burn her! Burn! Burn her!…

    BEDEVERE:
    Quiet! Quiet! Quiet! Quiet! There are ways of telling whether she is a witch.

    VILLAGER #1:
    Are there?

    VILLAGER #2:
    Ah?

    VILLAGER #1:
    What are they?

    CROWD:
    Tell us! Tell us!…

    BEDEVERE:
    Tell me. What do you do with witches?

    VILLAGER #2:
    Burn!

    VILLAGER #1:
    Burn!

    CROWD:
    Burn! Burn them up! Burn!…

    BEDEVERE:
    And what do you burn apart from witches?

    VILLAGER #1:
    More witches!

    VILLAGER #3:
    Shh!

    VILLAGER #2:
    Wood!

    BEDEVERE:
    So, why do witches burn?
    [pause]

    VILLAGER #3:
    B–… ’cause they’re made of… wood?

    BEDEVERE:
    Good! Heh heh.

    CROWD:
    Oh, yeah. Oh.

    BEDEVERE:
    So, how do we tell whether she is made of wood?

    VILLAGER #1:
    Build a bridge out of her.

    BEDEVERE:
    Ah, but can you not also make bridges out of stone?

    VILLAGER #1:
    Oh, yeah.

    RANDOM:
    Oh, yeah. True. Uhh…

    BEDEVERE:
    Does wood sink in water?

    VILLAGER #1:
    No. No.

    VILLAGER #2:
    No, it floats! It floats!

    VILLAGER #1:
    Throw her into the pond!

    CROWD:
    The pond! Throw her into the pond!

    BEDEVERE:
    What also floats in water?

    VILLAGER #1:
    Bread!

    VILLAGER #2:
    Apples!

    VILLAGER #3:
    Uh, very small rocks!

    VILLAGER #1:
    Cider!

    VILLAGER #2:
    Uh, gra– gravy!

    VILLAGER #1:
    Cherries!

    VILLAGER #2:
    Mud!

    VILLAGER #3:
    Uh, churches! Churches!

    VILLAGER #2:
    Lead! Lead!

    ARTHUR:
    A duck!

    CROWD:
    Oooh.

    BEDEVERE:
    Exactly. So, logically…

    VILLAGER #1:
    If… she… weighs… the same as a duck,… she’s made of wood.

    BEDEVERE:
    And therefore?

    VILLAGER #2:
    A witch!

    VILLAGER #1:
    A witch!

    CROWD:
    A witch! A witch!…

    VILLAGER #4:
    Here is a duck. Use this duck.
    [quack quack quack]

    BEDEVERE:
    Very good. We shall use my largest scales.

    CROWD:
    Ohh! Ohh! Burn the witch! Burn the witch! Burn her! Burn her! Burn her! Burn her! Burn her! Burn her! Burn her! Ahh! Ahh…

    BEDEVERE:
    Right. Remove the supports!
    [whop]
    [clunk]
    [creak]

    CROWD:
    A witch! A witch! A witch!

    WITCH:
    It’s a fair cop.

    VILLAGER #3:
    Burn her!

    CROWD:
    Burn her! Burn her! Burn her! Burn! Burn!…

    BEDEVERE:
    Who are you who are so wise in the ways of science?

    ARTHUR:
    I am Arthur, King of the Britons.

  16. One of the prime ironies in this argument is that the same people who vehemently condemn the promiscuity of the “gay lifestyle” are throwing up roadblocks to committed relationships. Hello?

    As for Mr. O’Reilly marrying two women, why that’s just blatantly against Christian principles. It says right there in the Scriptures, “No man may serve two masters.”

  17. The whole duck argument comes out of the belief that he bonds between gay couples are entirely sexual. Men who screw animals aren’t looking for their soul mates, just a good time. To the conservative mind, there couldn’t possibly be love or a desire to settle down and start a family between two gay people; it’s gotta be the sex.

  18. So not only is Derbyshire afraid he’ll be overcome by temptation to marry his sister without a legal prohibition; now O’Reilly is afraid he’ll succumb to duck-lust.

  19. All this talk of marrying an animal is ludicrous. Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free? While true that cows can’t say “I do”, I’ve never heard one say “no.”

  20. Thanks, joe. Since the state’s involvement in marriage grants a set of specific rights, people might choose to be married but not be sexual partners, or even without some feeling of love and shared legacy. Before yesterday that might have been “immoral”, but was legal for a pair of complementary heteros. Now most anybody can arrange to get that set of rights, and since they’re less scarce the perceived value/price will likely drop.

    The homos and the duck-wedders are cheapening the self-image of conservatives. The “marriage club” is no longer exclusive.

  21. Twisted Merkin. Excellent name. Did you use duck feathers for the weave?

    THe Merovingian: very good Monty Python. From where did you copy that?

  22. A Biblical argument against multiple spouses may have difficulty, seeing as how many of the early Biblical figures had multiple wives.

    Hell, some of those guys were happily knocking up their wives, and their wives’ handmaidens, and their own handmaidens, with no apparent divine disapproval.

    “Jacob had 13 children, 10 of whom were founders of tribes of Israel. Leah bore him his only daughter, Dinah, and six sons… Leah’s maidservant, Zilpah, bore him Gad and Asher, and Rachel’s maidservant, Bilhah, bore him Dan and Naphtali. Rachel’s sons were Benjamin and Joseph (who did not found a tribe, but whose sons founded the tribes of Manasseh and Ephraim).”

    Jacob was married to Leah and Rachel, who were sisters.

    Kinky.

  23. Sources say O’Reilly wants to marry his Marilyn Chambers look alike and feel alike blow up doll. Its the anatomically correct version with 3 real orifices.

  24. I wrote: “and their own handmaidens”

    Never mind that part… Should have been “their other wife’s handmaidens”.

  25. Nick, the ad hominem aside, your argument here I think is strong and not easily refuted. You (correctly) grant that this decision, with a plausible extension of its argument, could lead to further removal of marriage restrictions. (Plural marriage, incest laws, etc.) This site appears to be real, so I assume that at least some people do strongly favor the legality of cousin marriage in all states.

    Despite this, it’s true that generally such restrictions reflect society rather than create it, so one would assume that such marriages would continue to be rare. The counter-argument is the other well-known truth people’s behavior does change with incentives, an changing laws do change incentives.

    (As a single man, though, I remain in opposition to polygamy for personal reasons.)

  26. Merovingian: “Why not the laissez faire approach to marraige? :)”

    Well, my fiance prefers a more hands-on approach. 😉

  27. Madog: “Think about how hard it is finding that perfect person to spend the rest of you life with, and then think about how hard it is for several persons to find those perfect persons to find their lives with.”

    Precisely the reason why my fiance and I are unlikely ever to be in a position to act on our polymarriage beliefs. Excellently put.

  28. “But O’Reilly–and conservatives who fret that yesterday’s ruling will open the floodgates to men marrying goldfish–can relax. It’s highly unlikely that Modern Bride will be carrying a sheep on the cover anytime soon. Marriage is, after all, a consensual contract, and very few birds and fish–and even mammals–can say “I do.”

    Priceless.

    Let this be a lesson to sporting laddies expecting to appease their Mums by tying the knot with a member of a different species.

  29. The funny thing about this debate is that Robert Heinlein covered it all 20 years ago and more. See “Friday” for group marriage involving humans and clones.

  30. I wouldn’t laugh at O’Reilly for his suggestion about humping ducks, except that he chooses such UGLY ducks.

  31. If some gay couples have open relationships, so what? Some straight people have them too.

    What married people do with each other, or with others, isn’t the state’s business.

  32. Joe – you’re also right about the self-selecting aspect. I forgot to mention that. And to use a few silly theorists to discredit an idea is absurd.

  33. This whole “debate” is going the wrong direction. We should not be giving new legal benefits to certain kinds of relationships, homo-, hetero- or just plain weird.

    We should be arguing against benefits for marriage generally.

  34. You woke me up for this?

  35. “… his Marilyn Chambers look alike and feel alike blow up doll…”

    I sure as hell hope that’s the adult Marilyn and not Baby Marilyn from the Ivory soap box…

  36. Far be it from me to defend the King of Asininity, but this argument is basically the “slippery slope” argument, no pun intended.

    O’Rreilly, like so many others, seems to think that any change in the definition of marriage will lead to more and more changes.

  37. Douglas Fletcher writes: “I sure as hell hope that’s the adult Marilyn and not Baby Marilyn from the Ivory soap box…”

    Marilyn was the mother on the box, not the baby.

  38. The social conservatives are looking in the wrong direction to save marriage (from gay people). Perhaps what they should really do is only allow heterosexuals ONE marriage and ONE divorce in a lifetime, licensing and screening before procreating (whether married or not) and no marriages at ALL for convicted murderers, addicts, abusers, or those with violent tendencies and sex offenders.
    This makes more common sense in what saves a family, even if it sounds absurd.
    But the real absurdity is saying that polygamists and bigamists and fetishists are waiting for what happens to gays to make their stand. Obviously, there is no social necessity or demand for it, compared to the legit demand for gay marriage. So much so, that 38 states rendered new laws to ensure that gays can’t marry. Not to save marriage, family or children.
    Their rationale is ‘we just don’t like it’ and why that is sufficient is beyond me.

  39. I really don’t think I have this wrong — Marilyn Chambers as an infant was a model for the soap box.

  40. I submit that the ridicule and dismissiveness of the oponents of same-sex marriage is somewhat dangerous. Underestimating the opposition is always foolish. There will be a backlash, the only question is what form it will take.

  41. Franklin Harris-

    Thanks for reminding me about Heinlein’s “Friday”. He was the one that first made me realize that there’s nothing wrong with group marraige, years ago.

    I annoys me a little though that when ever I say I’m in favor if allowing group marriages people seem to assume that means I want to have several wives? I get the same thing when I argue in favor of legalizing drugs and prositution. Anyone have a way to get people to realize that arguing that people should be allowed to do something if they want is not the same as wanting to do it yourself?

  42. What is so bad about a readily available compromise (the VT approach) that will shut the most people up, satisfy the lawsuit, and avoid having to hastily attach a legal definition to a word that doesn’t even need one?

  43. Jeff Jacoby, Stanley Kurtz, and others claim that allowing gay men to have their relationships recognized as marriages will change the definition of marriage. Since gay men screw around a lot, it will become considered normal for married men to screw around, and this would be a bad thing.

    I personally think that equal protection under the law requires the extension of marriage benefits to gay couples, regardless. But the above prediction doesn’t seem easily dismissable to me. Anyone?

  44. rst, the existance of a “second class” is offensive to our democratic values.

  45. the existance of a “second class” is offensive to our democratic values.

    Where is this second class? The legal protection is the same; the nomenclature of the contract is altered. A “contract” is not first or second class, it is a legal document in this case as binding as a marriage contract. There is no functionally no difference.

  46. Joe — I think that’s more of a stereotype than the truth. I’m a gay man in a monogamous relationship and most of my friends in relationships are also monogamous. I know some couples who have “open” relationships, but they are mostly somewhat older, from a generation with a different ethos. Similarly, I know plenty of straight men (and women for that matter) who have cheated on their spouses. But even if my experiences are atypical, and the majority of gay men sleep around constantly, it doesn’t really address the issues of equal treatment under the law.
    For example, if someone were to say that a particular racial group were promiscious, should the state be allowed to bar them from being married?

  47. So long as the legal-contract-that’s-not-a-marriage is perceived as being inferior, the dangers of having a legally-designated second class will persist.

  48. Just FYI, there are states where bestiality is legal… or at least, not illegal. Of course, as has been mentioned before, actually MARRYING an animal is impossible, since animals are incapable of entering into a consensual legal contract.

    I would also like to say that the stereotype of gay men being promiscuous is not necessarily true. I am a gay man, 30 years old, and before I met my current boyfriend, I had sex on average about once a year. I’m not trying to show how virtuous (or in some peoples’ eyes, pitiful) I am, but rather that for every promiscuous gay man you find, you can find one who is not.

  49. By the way, somehow I keep hearing echoes of “separate but equal”, and we all know how THAT turned out.

  50. The argument about the slippery slope is complex. The religious right argues that permitting gay marriage essentially means marriage becomes meaningless, because the state can impose no restrictions on who can marry ducks, or cousins, or dozens.
    But I think the court’s reasoning could also be understood as allowing the state to define marriage as a contract between two people — not three or four, no ducks or geese — but to include homosexual love as well as heterosexual. It is the major variant of human behavior, for longer that Milt Romney’s 3,000 years of history. It’s not just one of a random number of permutations.

  51. The rhetoric about the Goodridge case opening up the gates to allow man to marry a duck is hyperbole. But it is not “the typical right wing straw man” to ask how the ban on marriages among cousins, or siblings, or parent-child will pass muster with the Mass. constitution after the Goodridge case. And it is also not a straw-man to ask how marriage will be between two people after the Goodridge case. The court ruled there was no rational basis for limiting marriage between one man and one woman, which is how marriage has been for centuries. Gay marriage proponents, how can we limit marriage between two people, if the three people all want to get married? Don’t the children of the three have a right for the state to bless their arrangement? And how can it withstand equal protection or liberty for Mass. to not allow cousins to marry? If you respond that cousins shouldn’t marry because it offends the tradition of marriage, then I call you a hypocrite, because the tradition of opposite sex marriage has been destroyed by Goodridge. If you say that cousins shouldn’t marry due to birth defects, etc., then I call you a hysteric who has taken racist, western-centric prejudices and imposed them on the law, because other cultures have cousin marriage and seem to do okay. If you say that cousins shouldn’t marry because it’s outside of the tradition of marriage, I say Goodridge took a dump on the tradition of marriage.

    It is not a strawman. Defenders of gay marriage, you cannot defend limiting marriage to two people, or to non-relatives. Thanks go Goodridge, I now realize how backwards and neanderthal I was to think that marriage was “the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others for life” I now know it means, “whatever the people who want to get married think it means”

    That is all.

  52. So long as the legal-contract-that’s-not-a-marriage is perceived as being inferior

    Gay “marriages” will be perceived as being as inferior, if not moreso, than civil unions. You will not legislate that out of society (the largest domain of perception) by messing with the definition of a word. The lawsuit sought legal protection equivalent to that currently enjoyed by married couples. The VT system provides that. And if two (continental) states adopt it, then another might. If you want an idea to pervade, why not put it in the situation where, if you pardon the metaphor, it has to overcome kinetic rather than static friction?

  53. Abu — I don’t agree with you regarding multiple partners. But probably the Mass. argument does apply to cousins. I don’t see why the state has a compelling interest in preventing cousins from marrying, since as you say, it happens in other cultures all the time.

  54. Jeff Jacoby, Stanley Kurtz, and others claim that allowing gay men to have their relationships recognized as marriages will change the definition of marriage. Since gay men screw around a lot, it will become considered normal for married men to screw around, and this would be a bad thing.

    Er– so the claim is that droves of straight married men are gonna start asserting their right to have sex on the side, because they see gay men modeling that behavior? “Geez, honey, why can’t I sleep with Beth from my carpool? Todd and Steve next door have an open marriage, and they say it’s working great for them!”

    Damn, this metrosexual trend is getting totally out of hand…

  55. “separate but equal”

    This isn’t a water fountain. These are legal contracts. The power and effect of a legal contract is not defined by its name, but by its contents. If the contents of legal contract A provide the same benefits, reponsibilities, and rights as legal contract B, then both A and B are legally equivalent, their name notwithstanding.

  56. rst– I wouldn’t mind that, as long as this “substitute” marriage really brought the benefits (and responsibilities) of marriage. Some people argue that that would weaken marriage more than gay marraige, but what I care about is the rights and benefits (spouse exemption from the inheritance tax, for example) Where I live, gay relationships are approved of generally, and I don’t really give a fig what Fred Phelps or Osama Bin Laden or Milt Romney think of my life.

  57. Mathilda: If Mero is a true fan, he probably typed it from memory. Loved the 2 masters bit, though.

  58. I could handle plural marriage if all the members went into the marriage on the same day and any one person leaving the marriage would end the whole union.

    Otherwise, we’re not talking about a new type of marriage, we’re talking about an entirely different arrangement.

  59. John S and Michael, thanks for the cogent responses. How’s this: while there are fewer gay men who are monogamous than straight men, those gay men who choose to get married are a self-selected, not representative subset. The fact that they are choosing marriage demonstrates that they are inclined toward monogamy. Kurtz gets around this by saying 1) open arrangements are more common among gay couples, even if other aspects of their marriages do follow traditional patterns, and 2) several gay activists (David Ehrenstein, for one) have explicitly stated that getting gay marriages recognized is a way to undermine the patriarchal, oppressive blah blah blah institution of marriage.

    Rob, your example depends upon there being a huge perceived difference between how gay couples behave, and how straight couples behave. By declaring gay couples’ relationships to be “true marriages,” Kurtz’s thinking goes, gay marriage rulings will eliminate that difference, and gay marriages will be seen, just like straight marriages, as appropriate models for married behavior.

  60. By the way, I still support gay marriage, and have the following quote from the decision on my office wall:

    “The plaintiffs are members of our community, our neighbors, our coworkers, our friends. We share a common humanity…Simple principles of decency dictate that we extend to the plaintiffs, and to their new status, full acceptance, tolerance, and respect. We should do so because it is the right thing to do.” SJC Justice John M. Greeney

    I just recognize that actions that are, on balance, positive, can still have some negative consequences.

  61. BTW, do you think they’d let O’Really bring his duck into the gay bath house?

  62. twisted merkin,

    Here in NW Arkansas, it’s hard for a hooker to make a living, because of all the pigs and chickens giving it away for free.

    Anybody remember that chickenhouse scene in Pink Flamingos?

  63. As conservatives, we should realize that marriage is the domain of the church, not of the state.

    We conservatives are supposed to be the proponents of small government.

    Instead of giving state sanction to homosexual marriages — we should take it away from heterosexual marriages.

    Keep government doing what it is supposed to do — building roads, arresting criminals, and fighting foreign wars.

    Keep government out of the bedroom. My bedroom would not be enhanced by a single member of the Bush administration.

  64. Real site for the all people .. have a good continuation!!

  65. EMAIL: krokodilgena1@yahoo.com
    IP: 62.213.67.122
    URL: http://www.PILLS-PENIS-ENLARGEMENT.NET

    DATE: 12/10/2003 07:08:55
    Without hope, the rest is nothing.

  66. EMAIL: krokodilgena1@yahoo.com
    IP: 62.213.67.122
    URL: http://penis-enlargement-exercise.nonstopsex.org
    DATE: 12/20/2003 10:33:41
    If you save the world too often, it begins to expect it.

  67. EMAIL: nospam@nospampreteen-sex.info
    IP: 195.94.1.122
    URL: http://preteen-sex.info
    DATE: 05/19/2004 04:27:40
    John Bradford, Encyclopedia of Word and Phrase Origins

  68. Learn about penis enlargement
    penis enlargement pill
    penis enlargement product
    penis enlargement surgery
    penis enlargement exercise
    natural penis enlargement
    free penis enlargement
    penis enlargement technique
    free penis enlargement exercise
    penis enlargement picture
    medical penis enlargement
    penis pump enlargement
    penis enlargement patch
    surgical penis enlargement
    herbal penis enlargement
    best penis enlargement pill
    free penis enlargement technique
    penis enlargement review
    penis enlargement herb
    penis enlargement pic
    penis enlargement program
    best penis enlargement
    penis enlargement pill review
    penis enlargement excercises

  69. Consumer information to buy satellite tv,plasma tv,lcd tv and othe consumer electronics products

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.