Gay Marriage

Andrew Sullivan: 'It Is Accomplished'

Gay marriage recognition, he means.

|

Sullivan
Stuck in Customs / photo on flickr

Andrew Sullivan, a granddaddy of political blogging and a former editor at The New Republic, retired his blog in February. During his writing and blogging career, legal recognition of gay marriage was arguably his biggest cause. He was making conservative arguments for gay marriage recognition while much of the gay political establishment was focused in other areas like fighting workplace discrimination. He was writing about it all the way back in 1989.

So on the occasion of today's Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, he broke briefly from his retirement to react:

I think of the gay kids in the future who, when they figure out they are different, will never know the deep psychic wound my generation – and every one before mine – lived through: the pain of knowing they could never be fully part of their own family, never be fully a citizen of their own country. I think, more acutely, of the decades and centuries of human shame and darkness and waste and terror that defined gay people's lives for so long. And I think of all those who supported this movement who never lived to see this day, who died in the ashes from which this phoenix of a movement emerged. This momentous achievement is their victory too – for marriage, as Kennedy argued, endures past death.

I never believed this would happen in my lifetime when I wrote my first several TNR essays and then my book, Virtually Normal, and then the anthology and the hundreds and hundreds of talks and lectures and talk-shows and call-ins and blog-posts and articles in the 1990s and 2000s. I thought the book, at least, would be something I would have to leave behind me – secure in the knowledge that its arguments were, in fact, logically irrefutable, and would endure past my own death, at least somewhere. I never for a millisecond thought I would live to be married myself. Or that it would be possible for everyone, everyone in America.

But it has come to pass. All of it. In one fell, final swoop.

Read the whole thing here.

NEXT: Parents have a right to reasonably spank their children, says Massachusetts high court

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. I think Sullivan might be, in his elation, overstating the effect of this ruling. The cultural shift to acceptance of homosexuality has been a steady thing, and will likely continue to be, but today didn’t flip a switch in anyone’s mind on the subject.

    1. No it just made gay people legal equals of straight people, which was all anyone was asking for.

      1. which was all anyone was asking for

        Sockpuppet doth protest too much.

      2. Yeah, that’s all they want. Now shut up and make me a goddamn pizza.

      3. No it isn’t you fucking liar. Go to HuffPo and you’ll see an article listing around 15 things that the gay movement wants now. They are now pushing for acceptance in everyone’s mind, not the tolerance and equality that you are speaking of. The movements supporters are already saying that they still don’t have equality because not everyone is fawning over them like a bunch of kittens.

        I imagine this acceptance will be pursued through witch hunts and public execution via shaming and the progressive outrage machine.

        Anyone with a brain knew this was coming. I for one don’t give a shit either way but if you think I’m gonna scream “Yippee!” because someone with a fucked up genetic code can get married, then you’re wrong. I’ll give you the same “Meh, you’ll be divorced in a few years” that I give everyone else.

    2. I don’t think he’s saying much else. He’s talking about the Gay Kids of the Future!, and this is a good indication of the positive trend.

    3. Then there is the reality of the brutal cultural fight this is going to involve. When the government starts forcing people to participate in gay marriage ceremonies and recognize gay marriages as a cost of being a public accommodation. That is going to produce a lot of civil disobedience and a lot of people getting hammered by the courts. I suspect that is not going to do a lot to help gays become more accepted.

      I don’t think many gays are interested in a peace with honor. I imagine they are going to capitalize on their cultural power and gains in the courts and use them to go after their enemies the the full extent possible.

      1. That is going to produce a lot of civil disobedience and a lot of people getting hammered by the courts. I suspect that is not going to do a lot to help gays become more accepted.

        Makes no difference. If the peasants were going to revolt, they would have by now. All that’ll come out of it is some grumbling, and everyone will go back to work as usual.

        1. It depends on how far they go. If they make the red folk pay more taxes, well, that’s business as usual. If they start throwing people in jail, they might finally cross the line that leads, at minimum, to red state secession.

          As it stands, and as will only become more pronounced thanks to the modern climate of bizarro-McCarthyism, the blue tribe is essentially driving the red tribe out of all major national and international institutions (classrooms, media, boardrooms, government, even the military). An expected consequence will be that the red tribe has essentially zero reason to care about the survival of any of those institutions.

      2. We already have different religions getting married. As far as I know, no Muslim has forced a synagogue to perform their marriage. Why would gay be any different. There are gay friendly Christian denominations, get gay married there.

        1. Unfortunately, there are no gay friendly bakeries.

          1. Rich I know what you are saying, but I think it is unfair to take a couple of assholes and project that onto an entire class of people.

            1. A couple of assholes who were rewarded for their assholery by our lower courts.

              1. If your waiting on me to defend the courts, you’ll be waiting awhile.

        2. Because there is more to life than doing the ceremonies. Do churches have to recognize the gay marriages of their employees now? They have to recognize marriages from other religions. They will have to recognize gay marriages. So that means a Christian school that has a gay teacher has to recognize her spouse. That means a spousal support group at a church, has to allow gay spouses in. That means a church that rents out its basement for wedding receptions will have to rent it out for gay marriages. Further, it is not clear that they could even refuse to do gay marriage ceremonies. If I am a confirmed Catholic in good standing, how can they say I can’t have a gay marriage ceremony in a Catholic church? I am a Catholic aren’t I? And they let other Catholics have theirs. Why not mine?

          This is going to cause an enormous amount of restriction on people’s ability to object to or not participate in gay marriage as an institution. IT is going to result in huge infringements on people’s rights to free exercise. None of that of course matters to Libertarians. Religious people are not cool and Libertarians as a rule hate them and are if they were honest happy to see them get fucked, especially if it is in the name of someone Libertarians do like as much as they like the gays.

          1. Are you really a catholic in good standing if you are gay? Also, if a church is engaging in business transactions and are forced to accommodate all patrons, that’s not really an infringement of religion as much as freedom of association and that train has sailed.

            1. You are if the court says you are. If you are black does that mean you are not a CAtholic? Could the church get by with saying they won’t do black catholic weddings? No way. Well this decision makes being gay just like being black and will effectively make it illegal to refuse to do anything because you object to gay marriage.

              You will have the first amendment right to say you object. But you will have no right to act on that belief in any way except not inviting gay couples to your home. If you do anything that involves public accommodation, any refusal will land you in court and bankrupt. That is how this is going to work.

              But hey, you guys got gay marriage and that is all that matters. No one else’ rights matter, only gays’ rights.

              1. But hey, you guys got gay marriage and that is all that matters. No one else’ rights matter, only gays’ rights.

                As the conservative persecution complex intensifies to the point of tears, so typically does the conservative’s mendacity and need for strawmen.

        3. “As far as I know, no Muslim has forced a synagogue to perform their marriage.”

          Because they know that could be turned around on them. Progs don’t worry about such things, and probably don’t have to. You underestimate how much SJWs are driven by hate — gays are a means to an end, their main goal is to see The Other broken and humiliated, and the ultimate humiliation will be to coerce red Christian churches into performing gay marriages against their will.

      3. John: “I don’t think many gays are interested in a peace with honor. I imagine they are going to capitalize on their cultural power and gains in the courts and use them to go after their enemies the the full extent possible.”

        I think MOST gays just want to live their life and won’t blow a gasket if someone doesn’t accept them. But the small percentage of SJW types will make the rest of gays/lesbians seem angry and intolerant.

        1. It won’t matter what the most think. They won’t stand up to the angry and intolerant minority. So the angry and intolerant minority are going to be the ones who make the decision.

        2. I think MOST gays just want to live their life and won’t blow a gasket if someone doesn’t accept them. But the small percentage of SJW types will make the rest of gays/lesbians seem angry and intolerant.

          Add in “well-meaning straight ‘allies'” and then you get a ^^^THIS

          1. I think most do Jesse. But a lot do not. And what difference does it make if most do? They are not going to stand up to the intolerant ones. They are not going to stop the intolerant ones from suing the fuck out of everything that moves.

            Being gay in this country is going to come to mean suing people you don’t like. That is probably not going to end well for gays. But I don’t see how to stop it.

            1. John, I agree with you that there is likely to follow a bunch of ugliness.

              But the argument “moderate gays are responsible for stopping the extremist gays” or “moderate muslims are responsible for stopping extremist muslims” isn’t very fair.

              I certainly don’t want to be held personally responsible for stopping any straight guys that are out of line.

              It plays into the whole identity politics thing. Why is a gay/muslim/christian/straight responsible for the group?

            2. I’m curious how you think anyone else can stop it? Can I counter-sue for the embarrassment of a litigious attention-whore suing?

              I don’t think litigiousness is good for popular opinion, but would it be appropriate for me to hold Christians at large accountable for Westboro Baptist or the American Family Association? Should I expect some Episcopalians to throw a soap party for Martin Ssempa or Scott Lively?

              1. Sure it would, if Christians didn’t actively and loudly repudiate them. All I am asking is for people like you to stand up and say this is wrong. It would do more good than you think.

                1. I don’t think most Christians know who Scott Lively is even if he’s working evil in their name, but that’s neither here nor there, how many people need to say the right words for you to have a change of heart. How many righteous gays must there be in Sodom before you’ll spare the city?

                  I know David Boaz is on board, Shackford, Stephen Miller, John Rauch, the folks over at GayPatriot, the folks at Indie Gay Forum and I’m 95% sure on John Corvino…

                  Also, I’m just curious here what you think about cripples. Are all cripples liable for the ADA and the litigious cripples that go looking for places to sue? Or are there enough cripples that just want to be left alone that you don’t hate cripples?

              2. Maybe I’m wrong here, but I think what John might be saying is that it’s likely few gays will actively disassociate themselves from the social justice cadres’ behavior. If I’m not mistaken most Christian denominations have done that with the Westboro Baptist Church, et al.

                1. It’s a frustrating line of argument though, Bill. I’m associated with it by default. Do I need to make some kind of public declaration of faith? Because even when I’ve done that here people still argue with an SJW archetype instead of me.

                  There is no gay pope, or patriarch, no president of homosexuality, we have no king.

                  I’m not associated with any gay organizations that can speak on my behalf. Somehow a few litigants have been assigned to speak for me. Until about a week ago, John was still arguing with me as if they spoke for me, which I very much appreciate that he’s not doing now. So I’m wondering, do we need some sort of registry? Maybe there needs to be a mandatory homo conclave where we can hash out a formal policy?

                  1. Fly a Confederate flag. No one will associate you with an SJW then. We could use some California “allies” .

          2. I keep forgetting to add “ally” to the list of words that indicate An Insufferable Prick. Oh, PoC should go there too.

            Anyhow, I should try to stop being annoyed at Roberts and his parade of fail, and take a few moments to feel soem vicarious happiness for the gays out there can who finally stop getting laid and settle into a life of quiet resentment.

  2. Now all Sullivan has to is pluck up the nerve to pop the question to Barack.

  3. Today must be like Christmas, Halloween, Black History Month, LGBT Pride Month, Earth Day, May Day and Lenin’s birthday all wrapped into one.

    I don’t normally visit prog sites but I can only imagine that if I did today, I’d projectile vomit from the overdose of smugness.

    1. If I recall correctly Halloween is the highest gay holy day. But others here would be more knowledgeable.

      I still remember watching an entire phalanx of gay zombies sliding through the West Village doing the Thriller choreography. It was brilliant.

      1. …Are you quoting Will & Grace?

        JACK: Hey, Halloween just happens to be the one day of the year that makes the other 364 bearable. This and the Tony awards. But fine, turn your back on the gay high holy day, but it is sacrilege.

  4. The Mr. Slave look suits him!

    Oh, Jeeeeeees Chrisssss…

  5. Someone please tell me again, why anyone calling themselves a Libertarian cares if the state “recognizes” their marriage? Is it the government benefits libertarians claim to detest what they’re after? Is it the prestige of the state’s thumbs up what they want? Is it being subject to the crappy community property regime what they’re pining for? Seriously, why would any libertarian want to expand the power of the federal government into our private lives?

    1. I suspect that you won’t listen no matter how many times we tell you about freedom of contract and equality under the law.

      1. Hugh — gays have always had freedom to contract. And please enlighten me on “equality under the law.” Please do, Hugh. Explain to me exactly what that means from a constitutional perspective. Equal Protection in 14th Amendment does not mean that at all.

        No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

        1. It means that states are no longer allowed to discriminate against people seeking a license to marry someone of the same sex/gender, which means that homosexual marriages must be treated the same as heterosexual marriages.

          1. Same sex relationships are not equivalent to opposite sex relationships. Chickens can bespherical intheory but they are not in reality.

      2. Hugh, gays have freedom of contract. Show me one state that refuses to recognize contracts between gays? This is about the ability to force people to recognize their marriages. That is it.

        1. It’s not about forcing people to recognize anything. You don’t have to recognize gay marriages any more than I have to recognize yours. It’s about making the states issue marriage licenses without discrimination based on the sex/gender of the licensees.

          1. Yes it is. That is the entire point of haivng a license. If you have a license your employer has to give your spouse insurance benefits if he gives them to spouses. If you have a license, no one can treat your spouse any differently than any other spouse

            There is two aspects to government marriage. The first is the enforce contract terms and procedures for ending the marriage found in family law. The second aspect is the force of law that comes with having government sanction to your union.

            You are not going to listen to this because support of gay marriage and the conviction that there are no downsides to it is now a religious conviction among some Libertarians.

            1. No of those problems you cite are unique to gay marriage but to marriage in the country in general.

              Why aren’t you getting all butt-hurt about all the other marriages?

              1. Why aren’t you? Isn’t the libertarian position be that marriages should not be sanctioned by the government?

                And yeah, I am sorry that the thought of people acting on their conscience, even if I personally don’t agree with it, getting sued into bankruptcy makes me a bit butt hurt. That is just how I roll. I am not cool and don’t get it how important and noble gays are. I think they are people like everyone else.

                1. I am not cool and don’t get it how important and noble gays are. I think they are people like everyone else.

                  HOMOPHOBE!!

                2. I am sorry that the thought of people acting on their conscience, even if I personally don’t agree with it, getting sued into bankruptcy makes me a bit butt hurt

                  Has nothing to do with gay marriage.

                  1. It has everything to do with how the majority of SCOTUS justified their decision.

        2. This is about the ability to force governments to recognize their marriage.

          And there were many states that refused to recognize marriage contracts between gays, because the only marriage contract they would recognize were the state sanctioned ones.

          The current law does not allow you to form your own marriage contract.

          1. Sure it does. You just can’t call it that. You can make a contract that says anything you want. What do you think gays couldn’t do?

            1. The contract wouldn’t be enforceable, and you very well know that.

              1. What contract? You tell me what contract would not be enforceable. In fact, contracts between gays are less enforceable now. IF the get married, family courts are going to refuse to enforce contracts that divide property that otherwise would have been enforced. Now married gays are subject to things liek forced shares in wills and forced shares of retirements and such.

                Family law is primarily one giant restriction on the right to contract. And you know that but forget it here because gay marriage is an article of religious faith with you people.

                1. John doesn’t care if what he’s saying is actually true. He’s DESPERATE for something anything to rationalize his bullshit with.

                  1. I know it’s true. That because I know something about family. You literally have shown no knowledge about anything cytoxic.

    2. There appear to be two competing libertarian concerns here. We want the state and its laws and regulations to treat everyone the same, but it would be better for everyone if they stopped thinking of marriage as existing only when state licensed. We give the state too much power over us when we subject ourselves to its definition of our unions.

      1. I understand this completely Fist. However, the way “freedom” has worked in the US up to this date, has been like a pie that has only so many slices. To give one person more freedom means to take away another person’s freedom. You never see it working towards an infinite amount of freedom as it should.

        And i will never see how a man choosing to sodomize another man is even remotely in the same universe as the protected classes of race, gender or religion. That is merely a sexual preference. I am all about people having the freedom to screw whatever they want but not at the expense of our other “freedoms.”

        So now the door is opened to prosecuting bakers with hate crimes for refusing to bake gay cakes — and that will soon be universal federal law I wager.

        I believe this decision will open up huge unintended consequences.

        1. However, the way “freedom” has worked in the US up to this date, has been like a pie that has only so many slices.

          Yep. In my lifetime, not once have I seen an attempt to mainstream a marginal group not come back to bite normal people who are just trying to live their lives in peace with as little pain as possible and just don’t wanna know right in the ass. The name of the game is never “live and let live”, it’s “that which is not forbidden is mandatory”. The anti-discrimination, public accommodations and hate crime legislation are getting written up as we speak.

          At this point I wouldn’t so much as support liberalizing parking violations, let alone anything else.

          1. Gays are very mainstream, bro.

    3. This Libertarian-minded whatever-the-fuck-I-am views the federal government as a tool utilized by zealots and the mainstream in whichever inculcation it exists in within any given allotment of time and space.

      Several decades ago the zealots and mainstream were quite religious and rigid in nature and hence the federal government mirrored the beliefs and apprehensions of this cabal. In modern times the nature of the federal government reflects a considerably weakened religious stance augmented with an embrace of liberal ideology and socialistic tendencies.

      The federal government in societies perceived to be open tend to be shaped by the aggregate- not the granular. Libertarians are generally granular. Little bits and pieces of philosophical madness squirming around the edges of this fucking rock we call American.

      This fucking rock needs its federal government to validate or disprove because decade after decade this is the hill the right and left have forced their battles to end up on.

      Frankly, the federal government has become a sort of end-all god to progressives and the right.

      1. Frankly, the federal government has become a sort of end-all god to progressives and the right.

        And to some libertarians.

        1. The Cosmotarian Menace

  6. One fell swoop

    fell [fel] fierce; cruel; dreadful; savage.

    And here I thought he was in favor of the ruling.

  7. One fell swoop

    fell [fel] fierce; cruel; dreadful; savage.

    And here I thought he was in favor of the ruling.

    1. dammit!

  8. I would be happy about this ruling except that it is overshadowed by the horrible fiasco of the King v Burwell ruling. It is right up there with Korematsu, Wickard, and Kelo in awfulness.

    1. This.

    2. At least we can all enjoy market-priced raisins.

  9. I wonder if he (and some supporters) aren’t attaching more significance to this ruling than it can possibly provide.

    the pain of knowing they could never be fully part of their own family

    If he believes that a court ruling can disappear these feelings I fear he is sadly mistaken.

    Gays are different from the norm, I’m not saying not normal, obviously a normal variation, but different from the norm. For example, gays will never be able to naturally procreate with their spouse. That is a uniquely heterosexual experience. Some feelings of abnormality may remain even though they will have equal legal protection.

    1. Believing in an imaginary beast like “normal” may be part of your problem.

      1. I don’t believe there is a norm; there is a norm. Of course there are many variations of normal.

        Norm = something that is usual or typical or more common.

    2. “If he believes that a court ruling can disappear these feelings I fear he is sadly mistaken.”

      When the federal government and its central planning prowess validates certain things people pay attention. This is the why and wherefore of the necessity of government to most humans. Very few societies can survive without forms of gods.

    3. The other thing is that gay rights are pretty much something white people like. The places where the population is rising are very hostile to gay rights.

      Further, we have gay rights now because the Prog culture has decided it wants it and is a useful weapon. Let the country change a bit, like say let there be a more powerful Islamic community, and Progs will turn on a dime and happily send the gays back in the closet. IF that ever happens, the gays can expect no help or sympathy from the right after this. The fate of gays in this country is now in the hands of the Progressives. Good luck with that.

      1. ” Let the country change a bit, like say let there be a more powerful Islamic community, and Progs will turn on a dime and happily send the gays back in the closet.”

        I don’t know if that’ll necessarily be the outcome, but they’ll definitely be forced to confront their cognitive dissonance at that point.

        1. John is spinning his ‘serves them right’ fantasies as predictions. He does that a lot.

          the gays can expect no help or sympathy from the right after this.

          “The Right” is clearly changing. The old bible-thumping homophobes are dying off.

          1. And being replaced by Muslims.

        2. I don’t know if that’ll necessarily be the outcome, but they’ll definitely be forced to confront their cognitive dissonance at that point.

          It’ll never happen. What will happen is that the Progs will weigh the worst case scenarios involved in favoring gays over Muslims, and conclude that while favoring Muslims over gays may result in some Two Minutes Hate at Gawker, favoring gays over Muslims may result in a beheading. So after a few something something racism something something punching down columns, the Progs will throw in with Islam.

    4. “For example, gays will never be able to naturally procreate with their spouse. That is a uniquely heterosexual experience. Some feelings of abnormality may remain ….”

      Heterosexual couples that cannot bear children experience similar feelings of abnormality. Abnormality is under-rated in terms of its close proximity to normality. At some point, what the fuck is normal?

      1. I agree. Many people experience that feeling of not being in the norm or outside of the common a experience, and many people experience some type of pain because of it, whether they’re childless hetero couple who want children but can’t conceive or a gay couple.

        I’m simple saying no court ruling will eliminate those feeling (if they exist) as Sullivan might be implying.

  10. “I never believed this would happen in my lifetime”.

    If they can do this, we can do anything.

    1. Oh yes they can Ken. Yes they can. Too bad you people don’t understand that.

      1. We understand. We don’t engage in mouth-frothing hysteria like you do.

  11. Why do you have to bring religion into everything?

    John 19:30

  12. “the pain of knowing they could never be fully part of their own family”

    Yes, that’s precisely it…he would like the government to stick it to Mom and Dad, so their kids can say, “look, the government says my relationships are OK, why don’t you recogize this, too?”

    You can say a lot of things about this aspiration, but I am not aware of any definition of “libertarian” which would include this within the prerogatives of government.

  13. I’m just looking forward to Reason moving on to the next #1 libertarian issue. I propose re-legalizing cockfighting but I expect they’re gonna go with “re-instating Reconstruction” or adding an “M” to the BATFE.

    1. The next number one issue is transvestites. Didn’t you see the tongue bath Reason gave Bruce Jenner?

      1. There you go conflating transvestites and transsexuals again.

        1. They are all the same. But yes you are one of the cool kids. I am not

          1. If you think they are all the same, you aren’t uncool, you are just ignorant and collectivist. These days, I think those are requirements if you want to be one of the cool kids.

            Congratulations!

  14. Sullivan was one of the first gay or political blogs I followed back in the day. It was around the time I was forming a political identity and The Dish was really influential. We started parting ways in the mid-2000s when he…became disillusioned with the Republicans and veered left, and I was introduced to Reason, but he definitely was part of the groundwork for me ending up here.

    1. So I can I blame Sullivan for having to suffer you.

      *rolls up newspaper*

      Where is that sum-bitch?

      1. Why are you such a jerk?

        You know how irresistible I find jerks.

        1. I know you like it when I rage out.

          *punches hole in wall next to Jesse’s head*

    2. His book Virtually Normal turned me around on gay marriage. I read it some time around 2000.

      He was awful on the Iraq War, as was Hitchens, and he was unforgivable on Trigg Palin.

      When he’s good he’s very, very good, but when he’s bad he’s horrid.

      1. He was awful on the Iraq War, as was Hitchens, and he was unforgivable on Trigg Palin.

        When he’s good he’s very, very good, but when he’s bad he’s horrid.

        I think I was briefly awful about the Iraq war for about 5 minutes before coming to my senses, but I agree 100% with this statement.

    3. He has veered hard-right and hard-left. Around 9/11 he went to the right, and then later to the left. He was a talented writer but too erratic.

      1. “He was a talented writer but too erratic.”

        Thankfully, other talented writers *aren’t* erratic, and have no personal problems at all.

    4. Same here.

    5. Hey, I actually had pretty much the same political journey. It really is a shame Sullivan any off the deep end like that – he did so much to shape how I think about politics and people.

  15. Now there is a dude with a plan. Wow

    http://www.Goin-Anon.tk

  16. Can 3 gay guys get married?

    Can 3 straight guys get married?

    Can 2 straight guys get married?

    Can a father marry his two sons, or just one?

    May a mother marry her daughter and sister?

    Can 2 straight females marry 4 straight males?

    If not, why not?

    1. Because the progressives don’t give a fuck about any of that.

    2. Dude you’re totally late to your own wank party.

      1. He’s got that saved to his clipboard so he can paste it into every gay thread. It’s tiresome.

        1. This is what it look like when Conservatives melt down.

    3. Freedom is frightening to a lot of people.

      And people who don’t understand the age of consent are truly frightening.

      1. It really has to be said that my examples are consenting adults?

        Well, okay…these are consenting adults. (Of course, you knew that, didn’t you.)

        As for freedom, if you’re against these combos, it sounds like you might not all that freedom loving….sounding a bit like Jerry Falwell.

  17. I started with my online business I earn $58 every 15 minutes. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it out. http://www.Workweb40.com

  18. We have burned the constitution, thr rule of law, common sense, and the dicttionary, but we’ve won!
    It costmthe nation’s, soul, or what was left after the molech burn baby burn finding in roe and Casey.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.