Trans

Memorialize Stonewall by Remembering It Was About Fighting Government-Endorsed Punishment

Learn from history and stop trying to use the law to hurt others.

|

Stonewall Inn
Credit: Diana Davies, New York Library

The gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender civil rights movement was historically fundamentally a fight for the right to free association. The right to hook up, the right to start families and have marriages legally recognized, the right to serve in the military—these pushes all originate from the concept that gay and transgender folks should be able to operate from the same rules of association as everybody else without the intervention of government authority or the sanctioning of punishment for those who make different relationship choices from the heterosexual majority.

It's an important reminder as some loud voices want to now use government authority and sanctioned punishment against those—like cake bakers or photographers—who want to exert the same right of association to say no to gay people.

It's worth bringing up now not just because of the current extremely punitive direction the culture war is taking, but because President Barack Obama's administration is looking to make a national monument out of the Stonewall Inn in Greenwich Village in New York. The location was ground zero for the Stonewall riots in 1969, where gay and transgender citizens fought back against raids from police.

It was a fight against the government. It was a fight against a majority who wanted to punish them with jail sentences, fines, and public humiliation for demanding the right to live their lives the way they chose. From The Washington Post:

"We must ensure that we never forget the legacy of Stonewall, the history of discrimination against the LGBT community, or the impassioned individuals who have fought to overcome it," [Rep. Jerrold] Nadler, who has co-authored legislation that would make it a national park, said in a statement. "The LGBT civil rights movement launched at Stonewall is woven into American history, and it is time our National Park system reflected that reality."

The president described Stonewall as a critical event in the nation's social progress during his second inaugural speech, reflecting the idea "that all of us are created equal," and alluded to it again when celebrating the 50th anniversary of the march on Selma, Ala.

Interior Department spokeswoman Amanda Degroff said Obama "has made clear that he's committed to ensuring our national parks, monuments and public lands help Americans better understand the places and stories that make this nation great" — though at the moment the administration has no official announcement on the designation.

"Discrimination" in this case isn't turning away gay people from jobs or hotel rooms or leases (though certainly that happened at the time as well—often with the encouragement of the government); it was really "abuse." It was legalized violence against gay men and women, with beatings and jail time. It was the use of force to hurt people.

Stonewall should teach us not to use the law to cause harm to others—not to deprive them of their liberty or property—on the basis of making choices that we don't approve of. Sadly, that has not happened. We see religious people having their businesses threatened by the government for refusing to provide cakes or venues for gay weddings. We see transgender people threatened if they use what officials declare to be the "wrong" bathroom.

Ultimately, in the end, when faced with arguments and counterarguments and metaphors and comparisons (many exaggerated) this is why I'm not willing to budge on letting private companies opt out of providing services, and it's why I'm not willing to budge on expecting the government (not the private sector) to acknowledge the choices of transgender people to live openly how they choose. I want to stop using the law to hurt people, even people who think my relationships are sinful, even people who actively want to discriminate against me. I don't even want to punish people who themselves want to use government force against me—I just want to stop them from doing so.

This is what America's gay history has taught me. Liberty requires restraining the power of the state, not seizing it and turning it against other people. 

NEXT: Little Girl Detained By Police After Trying to Buy School Lunch with Real $2 Bill

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. This is what America’s gay history has taught me. Liberty requires restraining the power of the state, not seizing it and turning it against other people.

    But Scott, if we can’t enjoy the suffering of our enemies, what can we enjoy?

    1. The lamentations of their women?

      1. psst. He’s gay; he doesn’t get off on that shit.

        1. I thought gay men hate women, and so would take some pleasure in hearing said lamentations.

          You could also say that lamentations fall under suffering of enemies, but I’m going to make this reference work, damn it.

          1. I thought gay men hate women

            -1 every woman’s obligatory sassy gay friend

            1. +1 lesbian

          2. DC gay men hate women. I don’t think it’s like that in other parts of the country.

        2. The lamentations of their stereotypically effeminate gay men, then?

        3. Why wouldn’t he? I mean, the fact that it wouldn’t be his woman lamenting would certainly follow. But, I’d assume the opposition in question was heterosexual. In which case, there would certainly be a plausible case that they’d have women whose lamentations Scott could enjoy.

    2. Unfortunately, most people have learned the opposite i.e. liberty requires seizing the power of the state to protect yourself. Because, for example, the slave trade flourished because of private capitalism (true). There is rarely discussion of the way state power was used to issue, and protect, monopolistic trade practices.

      1. Because, for example, the slave trade flourished because of private capitalism (true).

        Sure, if we first agree that Capitalism is me driving a truck through my neighbor’s front wall and then availing myself of the contents of his house, including his family members.

        1. Agreed. My point (poorly expressed) was that an argument about slavery is that it was driven by the capitalist desire for profits.

          1. Every economic system has a desire for profits. Capitalism wants individuals free to make profits, communism in theory wants the workers to profit at the expense of the rich, socialism wants the same but to a lesser degree, corporatism wants profits for corporations at the expense of individuals, communism in practice wants profit for the state, and mercantilism wants profits for one specific nation and the individuals in that nation too.

            The slave trade boomed during the time when mercantilism was the norm and prevailing economic philosophy. If it was anyone’s desire for profits that drove the slave trade, it was the mercantilist desire for profits.

          2. Sure, but on a side note, everyone in the end has a desire for profits. Bernie Sanders has a desire for profits. Bernie Sanders is in the business of the State. According to Sanders, the State isn’t getting the profit margins it deserves. So Sanders’ plan is to drive a SWAT van through my front wall and avail himself of the contents of my house, including my family members.

            1. No doubt. But again, my point is about the kinds of arguments that people construct in order to arrive at the conclusion that we must increase state power in order to protect liberty. So, if you construct and/or believe that slavery flourished because of capitalism then you’re almost obligated to argue that the state must be given power sufficient to control capitalism because otherwise bad things happen. In other words, most people draw from history the exact opposite lesson that Scott draws.

              As I point out to my students, history is driven not by what is true but by what people believe is true.

      2. An industry that flourished during a time when mercantilism was the economic system of national choice enabled by tribal states who raided and enslaved other tribal states to sell them to merchants who worked for companies made up of several allied merchant families and chartered to a specific state of origin,

        Flourished under capitalism.

        Mhmm.

    3. Liberty requires restraining the power of the state, not seizing it and turning it against other people.

      Many at Reason apparently prefer to expand the power of the state in the name of “equality”. The gay marriage case did not go off as a freedom of association case, it went off as an equal protection case. The proposed expansions of public accommodations laws are supported by some here on the theory that, since we have such laws on the books and can’t get rid of them, they should be expanded to cover gay people.

      If you prioritize equality over liberty, you won’t get more liberty, that’s for damn sure.

  2. Today, the Stonewall Inn is a National Historic Landmark and has been restored to its former status as a popular gay bar.

    I also assume that the Stonewall is in full compliance with all local laws and regulations, unlike it was when it was raided in 1969.

    1. Not to mention that it was a similar sort of Democratically-led Neo-puritan, fuck small time bodegas businesses, public-image sweeping reform in the first place.

    2. If a man can’t get a drink from another man with his floppy bits dangling in the breeze, this isn’t the same America I grew up in.

      /hasnoideawhatgoesoningaybars

      1. Haven’t you learned that YouTube can teach you anything: Gay Bar by Electric Six.

        Sorry for necroing the post, but that was too good to not post.

    3. Well considering that it was raided because one of the major ‘local laws and regulations’ it was violating by providing a place specifically for homosexuals to congregate . . . fuck the local laws and regulations.

      Plus, aren’t we *libertarians here*? WTF do we care about local laws and regulations when they infringe on personal autonomy?

      ‘For the good of others’ is *not* sufficient justification for the initiation of force.

      1. I’mma go out on a limb here and say Paul was just being cheeky.

        1. I’m pretty sure I’m losing my touch.

      2. I don’t know the full story but one aspect is that gay bars in that time and place basically had to bribe the cops to let them stay in business.

        1. ^This. Also lots of mafia involvement in the bar ownership, from what I’ve heard.

    4. restored to its former status as a popular gay bar

      So… don’t touch anything in the bathrooms?

      1. Uhm, that pretty much goes for *any* bar.

        1. Of all the gross things Lena Dunham has shown on Girls, having Hannah snort coke off a bar’s toilet seat was at the top.*

          *But only if you don’t count her own nudity.

          1. The toilet seat is probably the cleanest thing in there.

          2. A few years back there was an article about UK pub owners coating toilet seats with WD-40 because it apparently made coke clump up and unusable. The comments on this article were split pretty evenly between Brits decrying the destruction of coke, Germans saying “what the fuck, we KNEW the English were dirty” and Americans wondering why England didn’t have hookers asses to snort coke off of.

            1. Don’t these heathens have keys to snort off of like regular people?

    5. unlike it was when it was raided in 1969

      No business is ever truly in compliance with all regulations, particularly restaurants and bars. There used to be actual laws in Virginia forbidding bars from serving “known homosexuals.” I realize that The Stonewall Inn is not located in Virginia, but many states had similar laws back in the day. They may still be on the books but are unenforceable.

      Also, the older homos tell me that raids on gay bars were a common feature back in the day.

  3. The whole article is voided by one oxymoronic sentence;

    this is why I’m not willing to budge on letting private companies opt out of providing services

    How is it that you propose to tell a private business (that you, presumably, don’t own or aren’t patronizing) to provide service?

    This only makes sense in a millenial capitalism or cultural libertarianism (i.e. not capitalism and not libertarianism) sense. I suppose it could be a typo, but given Scott’s consistently wrong stance on this I suspect not.

    1. What are you talking about?

      1. He seems to have been infected with John’s willful ignorance and mind reading ability.

    2. Scott is saying he supports private businesses opting out of providing services, and isn’t willing to budge on that point.

      1. And he always has so I don’t know what the fuck he means by “Scott’s consistently wrong stance.”

        1. Every day we stray further from God’s light.

        2. It doesn’t matter what Scott actually says, but rather how they feel about what he said.

        3. It would have been helpful had Scott written:

          “this is why I’m not willing to budge on letting private companies opt out of providing services despite what all my faggy cohorts friends think”.

          Because in all seriousness, given the wrong-think attitudes in these days of PC 2.0, I can’t imagine how tough it would be to be a Gay man in America and think that the gay bakers have been done wrong.

    3. It’s an awkward sentence, but I’m pretty sure Shackford’s position has been that private companies could opt out.

      1. I misread it upon first glance too.

        1. Yeah, I had to read it twice. If I were grading it, I would tell the author to re-write that into at least two sentences.

    4. Are we talking Scott’s public stance, or the super-secret stance that only some people here are able to intuit?

      1. We’re debating whether we should read like heavily autistic people do and parse the semantic content of each sentence individually and isolated from one another or whether we should read like people who can grasp the pragmatics of a sentence and understand how context and proximity to other statements determines meaning in text.

        1. What

    5. No, that’s right. If anything voids the piece it’s ” the right to serve in the military.”

      1. Are we talking about the federalized standing army or the way it was supposed to be?

        1. the one my tax doller bills pays for

          1. Well, here’s the thing then. Selective Service doesn’t give us (men) a choice; we’re all serving in one way or another, we just don’t it yet.

            1. The draft is bullshit. If people won’t voluntary defend the government it’s not legitimate.

              That said, even Selective Service is selective, i.e. putting the quality of the fighting force ahead of concerns about equality. (college deferments though, yada yada)

              1. i.e. putting the quality of the fighting force ahead of concerns about equality

                Well, yes, I don’t think anyone sane would argue that the military should field paraplegics as infantrymen. When Scott used the phrase “right to serve in the military”, I’m pretty sure he meant it in its usual conversational sense of “equal opportunity to be considered for service”, that is the military shouldn’t discriminate who can be a solider solely on the basis of race, creed, country of origin, sexual orientation, etc..

                Though, I guess one could make the argument that just as we didn’t field Japanese-American soldiers in the Pacific, we shouldn’t field gay soldiers if we ever fight Thebes.

                1. “equal opportunity to be considered for service”

                  In a world of limited time and resources you need filters. For example “female” is an extremely useful bit of information.

                  we didn’t field Japanese-American soldiers in the Pacific

                  And we should think twice about fielding Chinese-Americans in the Pacific now.

                  1. In a world of limited time and resources you need filters. For example “female” is an extremely useful bit of information.

                    You’ll notice I didn’t include “sex” or “gender” in that list. I’m talking about things that generally don’t have an effect on whether or not someone can do the job.

                    And we should think twice about fielding Chinese-Americans in the Pacific now.

                    Well, in that example, from what I can gather, it seems like the dude did it more for pussy than patriotism, especially considering he was Taiwanese.

    6. He’s saying that businesses should be allowed to opt out of providing services.

      The sentence is a bit cumbersome. I misread it as first as well.

    7. How is it that you propose to tell a private business (that you, presumably, don’t own or aren’t patronizing) to provide service?

      I’m pretty sure if you read the entire piece he’s actually saying he’s ” not willing to budge FROM letting private companies opt out of providing services

      it was certainly phrased poorly, but not so poorly that it should have produced the exact-opposite reading.

      1. Considering HM described my reading as anywhere between borderline and hardcore autistic and SF described it as obsessed with ‘teh feelz’ at about the same time, I’m pretty sure the track that derailed this train is broken in at least a couple of spots.

        Scott admits to writing for a non-libertarian audience. I don’t think running such writing in a nominally libertarian magazine does him any favors and any/all poorly-worded sentences only exacerbates the problem.

        You and HM, suggest that I need to consider the sentence in the larger context of the article. I can’t/don’t, or at least not Shackford’s context. I believe the Stonewall Riots as some sort of spark to an altruistic social movement to be largely retconned. This nation’s history is replete with ‘secular deists’, crypto-atheists, and feaux-puritans smashing in bar doors since the Whiskey Rebellion. Scott’s Memorial, IMO, rather conspicuously leaves out or glosses over the facts the same group/type of people responsible for kicking in doors, beating people up in the streets, and raiding men’s rooms then are still in favor of kicking in doors, beating people up in the streets, and raiding restrooms. They just use different justifications.

        1. Considering HM described my reading as anywhere between borderline and hardcore autistic and SF described it as obsessed with ‘teh feelz’ at about the same time, I’m pretty sure the track that derailed this train is broken in at least a couple of spots.

          How so? Both problems in comprehending figurative language and inference and lack of emotional regulation (e.g., aggression, destruction of property, and tantrums) are known to be typical characteristics of individuals with autism. There is nothing contradictory in mine or SF’s statements.

          1. Weird that you can read minds and declare there to be no conflict. I appreciate the magnanimous grace of your declaration though.

        2. Oh my fucking god, that was a lot of words to whine about how you’re not taken seriously by people who are better than you. You know there’s a reason we don’t, right?

          1. Funny, I thought the *exact* same thing when I read, “Buying a house is hard!”

        3. Maybe I just think you are at supercilious piece of shit.

  4. “The gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender civil rights movement was historically fundamentally a fight for the right to free association.”

    We have always been at war with Eastasia!

    Dade County, Fla passed a law in 1977 to prohibit job and housing discrimination against gays. The celebrity Anita Bryant helped get the ordinance repealed, and there was a national boycott against her.

    What about the free association of Dade County employers?

    Stonewall wasn’t even a decade old then!

    1. Yes, Anita Bryant was just fighting for free association. Go peddle your bullshit somewhere with people dumb enough to believe it.

      1. Did you kill off your brain cells with your own porn, or are you just being dishonest?

        I said that the gay-rights movement has been *opposing* freedom of association for a long time.

        1. Sugarfree reluctantly put away his device…he would have to do some more work before writing the next installment of his Hillary/Bernie/Trump three-way porn novella.

          Turning to the Hallmark Card Company assembly line where he worked, Sugarfree saw a wedding anniversary card featuring two fluffy bunnies. His poetic energies engorged, Sugarfree began writing the text of a greeting to put on the card.

          This was the kind of work which truly inspired Sugarfree; his porn was just a front. But what really got his mind racing and his pulse pounding was coming up with sentimental verses to celebrate life’s many landmarks.

          He began work on his poem:

          Ever since I met you, dear,
          The day has seemed much brighter
          You bring the joy into my life
          And make the darkness lighter.

          Sugarfree sighed in contentment as he completed his poem. This was the true outlet for his genius, not gross pornos. As soon as he’d sold enough porn to pay off the Mafia, he swore, he’d never write a dirty word again.

      2. His point, I think, was that even the early gay rights movement wasn’t just about free association, as it already was demanding mandates that businesses accommodate gays.

        To be fair, Bryant’s campaign was based on gays converting children to their evil ways. Its effect, though, would have been just as protective of free association as the NC law overturning local laws punishing people for declining to accommodate gays.

        1. His point is “My religion says fags are bad” and he comes up with things to say other than that and we are supposed to pretend it has anything to do with liberty.

          1. From the Collected Poems of Sugarfree, Hallmark Card Greeting Writer:

            I wish for you this Mother’s day
            A day that’s fully blest
            Because you are my Mom, because
            All Moms are just the best

          2. Now who is claiming mindreading powers and resorting to ad hominems?

            I think his point stands: Scott’s presentation of gay rights history as rooted in free association (which he supports), rather than a drive for public accommodation laws (which he opposes), is incomplete.

    2. Yeah, you have somewhat of a point.

      But Anita Bryant, from one casual google search, did a LOT MORE than oppose that one law. She was obsessed with the idea that if gay people were allowed to be gay, they’d try to convert children into being gay. She began her political activism not with protesting that law, but by protesting a singer for being excessively sexual. Boycott justifiable.

      I think both sides are stuck in a rut, thinking that one side must be against free association always 100% and the other must be fore free association always 100%. The reality is both have instances where they are anti freedom and both have instances where they are pro-freedom. The key to keeping ideological consistency here is not to engage in debates over which side is more against free association or debate how long or how often a side is pro and against freedom. The key is to simply stay on the side of free association and acknowledge that both the LGBT movement and the SoCons are occasionally right, and occasionally wrong.

      There is NO value for consistent free-associators to bother figuring out which side is better, or to try to figure out how good or bad these movements are. Just freely disassociate with both movements, offer support when it is warranted, and opposition when it is not.

      1. So Anita Bryant had Evil Motives.

        And she narrated one of the weirdest educational videos ever.

        Doesn’t change the fact that the gay-rights movement was all about limiting freedom of association, in Dade County and elsewhere.

        1. the gay-rights movement was all about limiting freedom of association

          Oh STFU already. See the subject of this post for an example disproving your stupid generalization.

          1. An example of the gay-rights movement being *for* freedom of association?

            Help me out here.

            Or are you taking some individual dissident and treating him as part of the movement?

        2. So Anita Bryant had Evil Motives.

          Which was why there was a “national boycott against her.” But you brought it up as if she were demonized for supporting freedom of association.

    3. The celebrity Anita Bryant helped get the ordinance repealed, and there was a national boycott against her.

      Not only her, but the Florida Orange Juice council for which she was a paid pitchwoman.

      1. Freedom of association!

  5. How long will it be before John claims this article doesn’t exist and that he’s never seen Shackford support freedom of association?

    1. Scott, your side won!

    2. You’re truly the Nostradamus of our age, Apatheist.

      1. More like Socrates. He just asked a question, giving him plausible deniability (oh, I wasn’t saying it would necessarily happen), and now he looks like a big smarty-pants, and yes I’m full of envy.

        1. Except John’s not even here!

          Should’ve left it vague, Apatheist. “How long until someone / some yokel…”

          1. No it’s vague enough because I didn’t specify that it would happen in this thread in particular. And yes it’s a question, specifically how long (because its guaranteed to happen).

  6. It’s an important reminder as some loud voices want to now use government authority and sanctioned punishment against those?like cake bakers or photographers?who want to exert the same right of association to say no to gay people.

    And also some high-pitched squeaky voices like New Mexico’s ex-Republican Governor Gary Johnson

  7. “The location was ground zero for the Stonewall riots in 1969, where gay and transgender citizens fought back against raids from police.”

    Of course the drag queens are left out!

    1. They are inclided. DQ is not a specific orientation. Also, back in the paleo days of the TG movement, my understanding is that many apparent drag queens were pre-op transgenders.

      1. “They are inclided. DQ is not a specific orientation. Also, back in the paleo days of the TG movement, my understanding is that many apparent drag queens were pre-op transgenders.”

        Many of the rioting drag queens were simply straight men with an odd habit. They aren’t being included.

        1. Many

          [citation needed]

          Pretty sure there hasn’t been a straight drag queen on RuPaul’s Drag Race yet, I’m thinking it’s mostly because so very few hetereosexual transvestite drag performers exist?

          1. “Pretty sure there hasn’t been a straight drag queen on RuPaul’s Drag Race yet, I’m thinking it’s mostly because so very few hetereosexual transvestite drag performers exist?”

            Probably, or the gay ones are just better at it:

            It’s true that the majority of drag queens are gay, but there is a small minority of queens who are straight. I honestly did not know this until I watched some of the audition tapes for last season of RuPaul’s Drag Race. One of the contestants stated that even though he performs in drag, he is 100-percent straight.

            http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..79249.html

            Of course, to your credit, there has been stratification here as well, with some not accepting straights as true “drag queens” but rather “female impersonators” still, they’re there. Perhaps I should have said “crossdresser” instead.

            1. I accept and agree with most of what you say, and I know that non-gay-male drag queens exist. There’s even “faux queens” who are bio-women… 😀

              I’m just objecting to the idea that more than, say, 5% of “Drag Queens” are straight, or were at Stonewall in the 1970s. When we start talking about “crossdressers” we probably get close to a majority of straights…

              1. “I’m just objecting to the idea that more than, say, 5% of “Drag Queens” are straight, or were at Stonewall in the 1970s. When we start talking about “crossdressers” we probably get close to a majority of straights…”

                Good objection.

                Using the the term “Drag Queens” as blanket term for “men wearing women’s clothes” was a mistake on my part. (Of course, next someone will object to the term “women’s clothes”)

                My point still stands though, if the transgender citizens deserve a mention then so do the “cross dressers.”

    2. Of course the drag queens are left out!

      They were retconned into transgender Americans like…a year ago.

      1. Leave Caitlin out of this.

      2. “They were retconned into transgender Americans like…a year ago.”

        There’s definitely some sort of civil war going on there, drag queens are increasingly being banned from Pride events, seems to be because their presence offends the transgendered and they embarrass the gay people. So, some sort of “transwashing” of history would make sense. (I’m sure they downplay just how white the Stonewall riots were today as well.) Then again, there also seems to be a trans led movement to push gay men out of the movement even though lesbians have been their bigger enemies…

  8. More “we’ve always been at war with Eastasia” news.

    There was a key gay-rights march in 1979.

    One of the demands of the marchers was a gay “civil rights” bill. See a sample letter to Congress on p. 24 of the march’s program:

    “Dear Congressperson __________/,

    “I am writing to urge your active support and co-sponsorship of H.R.2074 (Congressperson Ted Weiss, Congressperson Henry Waxman, Chief Sponsors). This legislation would amend existing civil rights law to prohibit discrimination based on ‘affectional preference or sexual orientation’ in employment, housing, and the military….”

    1. I was there. Good times.

      Do note that my politics in 1979 were far different from my politics today.

  9. It’s a sad comment on the current state of affairs in the US that groups that should be most acutely aware of the evils of statism–homosexuals, African Americans, Jews, Hispanics–invariably become the vanguard of the statist army.

      1. Only straight White people understand freedom, asshole.

        1. Hold on there, I bet alot of non-white, non-straight people understand freedom of the asshole.

          1. There’s a comma in the sentence, asshole.

          2. Like your mom?

            Hey-oh!

            1. WTF’s mom has a comma in her asshole? Kinky.

          3. Unpossible!

  10. Well, this thread just turned into one big misunderstanding.

    1. I don’t undestand what you’re trying to say, here, Paul.

  11. There is a very interesting article to be written about the tension between freedom of association and public accommodation in the gay rights movement. We’ve seen a couple of examples of the public accommodation side. It would be interesting to see examples of the freedom of association side, as well, and to see how the two strains of thought were debated within the movement.

    During the Great Gay Marriage Kerfuffle of 2015, I recall seeing mostly equality/anti-discrimination type arguments being made by the activists, which are associated with public accommodation, which, sure enough, the activists have begun to push for. I don’t recall seeing many freedom of association arguments being made by the activists. How did they get from Scott’s early-days freedom of association orientation to the current state intervention/public accommodation orientation?

    1. STFU and BAKE THE CAKE, CHRISTFAG

  12. my roomate’s mother-in-law makes $70 /hr on the laptop . She has been out of a job for eight months but last month her check was $16850 just working on the laptop for a few hours. original site

    ? ? ? ? http://www.ReportMax90.com

  13. “It was a fight against the government. It was a fight against a majority who wanted to punish them with jail sentences, fines, and public humiliation for demanding the right to live their lives the way they chose.”

    But let us not forget that it was also a battle against the “broad consensus” among experts in the field at the time that homosexuality was a form of mental disorder.

    A useful fact to remember the next time somebody talks about a “broad consensus” of scientific opinion on a given issue.

  14. til I saw the draft which was of $6881 , I didnt believe that my mother in law had been realy taking home money part-time on their laptop. . there best friend has done this 4 only twelve months and at present took care of the mortgage on there condo and got a top of the range Subaru Impreza . Learn More ….

    Click This Link inYour Browser….

    ?????? http://www.Reportmax20.com

  15. I’ve made $76,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student.I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money.It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it.

    Open This LinkFor More InFormation..

    ??????? http://www.selfcash10.com

  16. Most of us want to have good income but don’t know how to do thaat on Internet there are a lot of methods to earn money at home, so I thought to share with you a genuine and guaranteed method for free to earn huge sum of money at home anyone of you interested should visit the site. More than sure that you will get best result.OI3..

    ====== http://www.CashPost7.com

  17. before I looked at the draft saying $9453 , I have faith that my mother in law woz like truley erning money part time at there computar. . there mums best friend haz done this 4 less than 14 months and just repayed the dept on their apartment and purchased a brand new Honda . read here …..

    Please click the link below
    ==========
    http://www.selfcash10.com

  18. I am making $89/hour working from home. I never thought that it was legitimate but my best friend is earning $10 thousand a month by working online, that was really surprising for me, she recommended me to try it. just try it out on the following website.
    ============ http://www.Path50.com

  19. I’ve made $76,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student.I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money.It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it.

    Open This LinkFor More InFormation..

    ??????? http://www.Centernet40.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.