« $75/hour for what Grandma gave for free ... | Main | CoTV #130 - talk about your diversity »
March 15, 2005
Frisco judge -- you just knew
the irrational ruling on California's family statute that defines the public institution of marriage as "unconstitutional" would come from there.
This just makes me weary. You would think the decades of intercine social warfare since of wrong-headed Roe v Wade would teach people something.
The judge's decision is a study of irrationalty and personal advocacy. The equating of gender and race is particularly striking. "Race" is a myth, gender is not. The Law in many areas (ie labor and privacy laws) recognize that the genders are significantly different.
What the same-sex advocates through the judiciary argue is that the Law must recognize their love relationship. They argue that it is their "right" to be admitted to a public institution (no one is interfering with their private relationship) based on "love."
No family law statute I've read requires "love" as a condition of the institution.
The government, through representatives of The People (who this judge dismisses) has determined the parameters of a PUBLIC institution that government will support as optimal for the general welfare of society. It has rejected other forms of the institution (polygamy, etc) as not being optimal.
The Law defines the INSTITUTION, not the participants. Same-sex advocates demand the judiciary redefine the institution based on the participants eschewing any rationale on whether or not such a change falls within "general welfare" considerations.
This is an end-run around the People by a set of advocates that generally are saying "eff you" to their fellow citizens.
IMHO, same-sex marriage may indeed be the order of the day (and may benefit society as a whole), but I resist this tactic of demanding it via judicial fiat.
If our judges now wish to act like Iranian mullahs and make decrees with no tangible connection with the rule of Law or their actual judicial role, then why the hell have a Legislature in the first place?
Posted by Darleen at March 15, 2005 06:29 AM
Comments
Darleen, you sound so much like the White Southerners in the 1950's who were saying they didn't like the Fed Gov forcing integration down their throats. If you'd been alive then no doubt you'd be condemning Earl Warrena and arguing for gradual intergration of blacks into schools.
Posted by: Brad at March 15, 2005 10:17 AM
Geez, Brad, I'm so glad you actually read MY post and are not boiler-plating a response
/sarcasm
Since your reading comprehension seems broken... PERSONALLY, I'm in FAVOR of same-sex marriage. But I will FIGHT this movement of finding a "right to marriage" that DOES NOT EXIST and judges that act more like Iranian mullahs than judges.
Marriage is contract law and the scope and definition of valid participants in contract law is the province of The People not the judiciary. LEGISLATURES define all sorts of PUBLIC relationships all the time and they differ from state to state ... ie landlord/tenant, or automobile purchasing, or driver's license.
The government has no business regulating PRIVATE consensual relationships, but that is NOT what marriage is.
Please, do tell, Brad...under the reasoning of "love" how can the government deny a marriage license to any NUMBER of willing partners? How can it deny it on ANY reason as long as the adult partners are adults and willing? Certainly not incestuous relationships either?
This is why the judge in Frisco (and those in MA) have issued irrational decisions that are more about THEIR own prejudices then it has to do with due process and the Law.
Posted by: Darleen at March 15, 2005 12:46 PM
"The people," as represented by the legislature, write the laws; but it is the province of the judiciary to interpret the laws. You seem to have a problem not with the decision itself but who is making the decision. The fact that this is only one of several legal decisions--including Hawaii, Massachusetts, and New York City, that have legalized gay marriage and set a precedent--does not apparently deter you from claiming that "activist" judges are "rewriting" law. But what is happening is not really all that different from what happened several decades ago when laws against miscegenation were overturned by "activist" judges.
If you're on the side of progress, celebrate this decision...if however, you want to side with those who are against "activist" judges, then you will have to support movements to specifically ban gay marriage on a state by state, and even Federal, basis. That's what the Religious Right and George Bush want to do. Those laws remove rights that gay couples have been denied: rights to make life and death decisions about their partners, inheritance rights, the right to adopt, etc. Why would you want to side with groups that want to relegate gays to second class citizenship?
I am straight and I have no problem with gay marriage either. So I hope we can agree on this issue.
Posted by: Brad at March 15, 2005 01:26 PM
I can't wait for the American public/legislators to do what's right and give equal rights to same sex partners, if the judges are the ones who have the courage or the ability to make change then that's fine with me. Besides in many places the "people" have made that decision and still they are being battled and the point is moot because no one else will recognize same-sex marriage.
My gay friends, who have been together longer than almost all of my "straight" friends (and by the way, I have been married twice since they first got together), should absolutely be protected in the same way that I am with regard to social security, health bennies, inheritance rights, being able to take sick leave to care for the other (which he was denied), or even their rights as parents (if they were to chose to become parents).
Most people who object to same-sex marriage are people who can only think of gay/lesbian relationships in terms of sex, which is ridiculous. Everyone knows Jefferson and I have sex, but they don't know or care what we do in our bedroom - which is as it should be. We got married not only by our rabbi in a religious service, but also we took out a license/contract issued by the state of California, so that our marriage and our children would be protected and recognized with all of the responsibilities and benefits which signing the license implies. The government doesn’t issue these licenses because they care about our love, but for economic reasons and because, as you write, it is an institution that government supports as optimal for the general welfare of society. It’s not about sex it is about the welfare of our society, so why shouldn’t every couple who is willing to make that commitment be given the same protections and responsibilities? Wouldn’t it make us our society even more stable by allowing protections of family and financial security to all who choose it?
* I had to write this in two parts because I had to leave for a lunch. I see that you and Brad have been continuing the conversation, which basically mirrors what I have written.
Posted by: Mieke at March 15, 2005 03:38 PM
By the way, Darleen I wanted to tell you how much I appreciate, despite disagreeing with you on most things, how well you articulate your opinions. I may not agree with your conclusions, but you are clearly thinking, which is more than most people do.
Posted by: Mieke at March 15, 2005 03:40 PM
Brad
Either our separation of powers and the rule of Law means something or it does not. I am APPALLED at activist judges who put themselves in a place where the feel their own prejudices allow them to dictate to others.
No gays have been denied the "right to marry." Go look at the family law statute. It doesn't ask if the partners "love" each other or even the sexual orientation of the petitioners. It only says one man/one woman.
The People, through their legislature can determine the scope of PUBLIC contract law in what they believe is for the general welfare of the public. NO ONE has broken down the door of homes of same-sex couples and dragged them to jail for their PRIVATE relationship of living/gardening/owning property/paying bills together. If same-sex couples believe they should be included in marriage contract law then they must convince their fellow citizens just like fellow citizens were convinced to lower the voting age to 18.
Personally I would rather the government strike ALL marriage laws and leave it completely in the private realm than have judicial activists find weird rights where none existed.
Polygamy is an exploitive institution and each and every wrongheaded argument by same-sex advocates through the judiciary cannot be denied to polygamist advocates.
I will not celebrate judicial mullahs.
Posted by: Darleen at March 15, 2005 06:08 PM
Mieke
I don't find it courage, I find it elitist. And frightening in the sense that people applaud this legislation via judicial fiat. It is an affront to how the Founding Fathers conceived of this country.
It's a certain small percentage of judges that feel they have the corner on The Truth where us poor misguided unwashed masses cannot be trusted.
Brad makes sneering reference to the Religious Right "removing" the rights of gays (really? just what "rights" have been REMOVED?) but what you see in activist judges is PURELY RELIGIOUS motiviation. It is based on their FAITH that they are right, not on precedence or any manner of rule of law.
Posted by: Darleen at March 15, 2005 06:13 PM
HELP! I don't understand what you mean by "separation of powers and the rule of Law means something or it does not". Please explain.
Posted by: Mieke at March 15, 2005 08:27 PM
Mieke
The Founders were very wary of investing too much power in any one branch of government, or indeed within the Federal government. The flow of governmental power is from The People to the government, not vice versa. Indeed, the 10th amendment to the Constitution is persuasive and elegant in its brevity
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
The closer to The People, the more responsibility of the branch of government. It is the House, not the Senate that originates spending bills and the Congress as a whole that controls the purse strings. The Executive branch has the leadership role but cannot legislate law. And the judiciary, totally removed from direct answering to the People both has tremendous power and is circumscribed in what areas in which it can operate.
For instance, let's take a criminal trial by jury. The jury, pulled from the People, is the trier of fact. When a verdict is appealed, appellate judges are forbidden from any consideration of fact, they can only rule from a position of procedural error. The Founders based their trust & power in the People, not in appointed judges. Judges there are a check to legislators who overstep their mission but are not there to replace legislators. There is no more a basic function of legislators than crafting statutes to protect and support the general welfare of the society. Obviously, the SCOTUS would never interfere in the varied and myriad statutes across the country that deal in landlord/tenant law, or age of consent law or in any of my other examples. Why should marriage, which is both a contractual relationship and a public institution be treated as a "right?" Obviously, if the government got out the marriage license business, people would still have private relationships and would seek out individually crafted contracts to handle things like guardianship, inheritance and property ownership. Everything currently available to same-sex couples.
There is nothing, not in the writings of the Founders, nothing in the US Constitution itself that makes any pronouncement about marriage. The Consitution is decidely silent about marriage. Therefore, under the 10th amendment, the right of definition is up to the People in each state.
This is why such activist judicial rulings create such controversy. It is legislation from the bench and the people are rightfully resentful of the usurping of their constitutionally guaranteed rights.
Posted by: Darleen at March 15, 2005 09:34 PM
Darleen,
I think you have a genuine misunderstanding both about the nature of contract law and also of this case.
Government is in the business of licensing marriages for many reasons, none of which have to do with love of course. We have civil laws which permit and deny certain kinds of benefits for married couples. Please see this pdf document for a list of 1,049 federal laws classified to the U.S. code in which marital status is a factor.
http://www.marriageequality.org/1049.pdf
These include Social Security benefits, veteran's benefits, taxation, employment benefits, adoption rights and so on. There are laws in every state which DENY these benefits to gay couples. "Individually crafted contracts" would not override any of these laws.
Tell me, have you spoken with a gay couple about this and gotten their perspective? Because I have, and I know from several gay couples what they can and cannot do under the law. I have attended gay weddings and while the couple is "married" in every sense, they are not considered "married" in the legal sense--please see above pdf document for the 1,049 ways in which they are not married.
Second point: This was NOT a case of a judge overstepping the people. The people of San Francisco, via their legislature, led the way.
Allow me to quote from a law professor who had this excellent editorial in today's Times.
Even within California, Judge Richard A. Kramer of San Francisco County Superior Court, who issued the opinion, is following the political branches of state and local government, not leading them. He's no judicial activist. San Francisco's city council enacted ordinances recognizing same-sex couples decades ago, and its mayor famously wed same-sex couples a year ago.
In the past few years, the California Legislature has enacted laws granting same-sex couples almost all of the same rights and responsibilities as married couples.
Conservatives denounce judges who get ahead of legislatures, alleging that they are trying to change the world with a stroke of the pen, but that's not the situation in San Francisco. Same-sex couples' rights came from its legislature first, its mayor second and the judiciary last.
It is true that Judge Kramer declared a ballot initiative enacted by the state's voters unconstitutional. But that ballot initiative was not supported by voters in the Bay Area, and it does not appear to align with the views of a majority of the Legislature in Sacramento. One can disagree with Judge Kramer's ruling, but it is difficult to argue that his views are outside the mainstream.
No matter how much opponents of same-sex marriage will try to say otherwise, Judge Kramer is not a radical liberal judge, wired on lattes in Haight-Ashbury. He's just now catching up to what the mayor and city council and state legislature - and courts from sea to shining sea - have known for years: that all Americans are entitled to equal treatment. Is that news?
You're just wrong in your interpretation of the facts here.
Posted by: Brad at March 16, 2005 07:37 AM
So sad to see BBH is back with his wild and inane blathering. I'll communicate with you via email Darleen.
His participation in this conversation in nothing but noise.
Posted by: Mieke at March 16, 2005 11:41 AM
- Thanks Mieke.... you always betray your lack of maturity and intelligence with remarks like that.....no point of view....just ad hominem attacks.... which is all you ever get from the left these days....
Posted by: Big Bang Hunter at March 16, 2005 01:29 PM
- Heres some more of My "inane blathering"
- Concerning the Constitution/Bill of Rights, whats interesting is watching every instapundit in the blogsphere and beyond attempt to assign totured logic ideas and meanings to a document written at a time where such ideas were totally foreign. To wit.
- The IX and X amendments were the promised "adjustments", added by previous agreement at the original signing in '97, for the express purpose of absolutely limiting the power of, and potential reverse interference by, the federal "entity" and its institutions we now call the United States Government. They were designed for a completely different purpose than that which is being discussed and assigned to them at present. The sole purpose was to absolutely limit the power of said entity absolutely. They not only do not impart powers concerning soveriegn rights of, for, and by the people, they simply retain those rights at the state level, and within any such agreement that may exist between the states in their formed "federation". The Federal government has only the soveriegnty given it by that federation of states, and not one iota more, and only for such duration as the state federation agrees to it by mandate. If you didn't know, you are a citizen of your state first, and a citizen of the United States second.
- Not only does the constitution have no say in the privacy's or actions of the citizenry, its specifically prohibited from said interference.
- The problems arise because our own people, and more specifically our own leaders, do not even understand the core realities of the basic orginization and function of our country, our form of government, and our governing documents. They assign all sorts of wild imaginings to the simplist of intentions and words, while at the same time through many generations, the states have irresponsibly abbrogated their own powers and duties to the Fedral entity, simply because it was expediant and financially benefitial in one way or another. So much so that today the whole process is turned on its head, from judges legislating through the bench by interesting and imaginative expansions and readings in the wriiten text, where no such intent ever existed, to the excessive adventures of the Federal government itself in the past 150 years. So much so that the average citizen has a completely backward view of our governmental institutions and functions. Of course Washington is perfectly happy to leave it that way, and from a practical standpoint it may well be the only thing that will work in this day and age. But what we may percieve to be neccessary in a modern world, in no way changes the reality of what we actually have.
- The bottom line is that its the States alone that have the sovereignty, by mandate of the people. No other entity, inluding municipalities or county governments have any such rights. That they practice these things daily is also a matter of practicality and expediancy.
- The essential underpinning to all of our Romanic law is a distinction known as "the general application and practice of legislation and enforcement concordent with the greater good of the electorate as a whole". All other law flows from this basic tenent and is given only to the States as an absolute power.
- Now with all that in mind go back and think it through again. San Francisco has no implied or absolute power to make law, and 9th circuit and SC judges have no say in what states decide in their own behalf, through the express wishes of their electorates.
- The constitution gaurentees, most specifically in the XI and X amendments, will we will have and retain all rights, and that they will not be abridged or interferred with. Those clauses in no way spell out the details of those rights. Thats our call as citizens of a state, and the laws we pass in our state legislations and write into our state constitutions.
- When I said the constitution does not spell out the details, that seems to be at odds with the freedom of speech, right to bear arms, etc "rights" that are found in the other amendments. But such is not the case.
- The framers were so concerned with the idea of Federal interference with citizens rights that what you see, starting with the first amendment and subsequent paragraphs, are the expression of those fears. But it soon becomes obvious that its impractical to try to write in every possible freedom you wish to retain. The XI and X cover the bases in a totally general way as I outlined earlier, and make the others redundent. Thats why special interests with an agenda either ignore them entirely, or attempt to distort their intent and clear meaning.
- Roe vs Wade, and all other such specious SC actions, should never have happened. All questions of societal norms should be decided by the electorate of each individual state. The SC should limit itself to adjudication questions between the branchs of the Federal and disputes between states. Period. That was the original intent and purpose given to the SC judicial by the federalists. No other was intended. Now through mis-application and partisan manipulation we have a hell of a mess on our hands.
- Note to the left. No matter how distateful the idea of majority rule may be to you, thats the form of government we have in our State Federation Republic. Deal
- Hows that for blathering Mieke. think you can absorb some of that?
- Excuse the ecessive post Darleen. But sometimes ignorance just has to be combated.
Posted by: Big Bang Hunter at March 17, 2005 12:00 AM
- By the way ..... President Bush is full of doodoo if he thinks he can legally write an amendment defining and limiting marraige between opposite sex partners. Not only is it totally irrelevant, but worded wrong. The only amendment he could write would be a clause re-asserting the right of states to decide for themselves, and that would in itself be redundent, since its already covered by the IX and X clauses.
Posted by: Big Bang Hunter at March 17, 2005 12:15 AM
Big Bang,
I can see you've been reading Larry Macdonald, and/or writings of the Federalist Society.
Let me ask you this: do you include as "excessive Federal adventures" Amendments 13 through 27? Because all those "wild imaginings" such as the legality of slavery, the right of women to vote, the prohibition of alcohol (and its repeal in Amendment XXI), the right of 18 year olds to vote, etc were not part of the original Constitution or Amendments I -XII? If you really want a strict adgerence to the will of the Founders, you might want to reconsider the many changes our evolving Constitution have undergone if the past 150 years. Was the Confederacy right?
Posted by: Brad at March 17, 2005 07:53 AM
- Brad - With the possible exception of the womans right to vote, which is steeped in historical, and sometimes hysterical, male approbation and ego fed antsiness about the length of their penis's, there is nothing at all in the constitution that in anyway alters our ability to right an agregious wrong, such as the civil rights changes, which incidently was an evil in our society not supported by the majority. The problem is that we don't make those changes, in genreal tending to "leave it alone", until some citizen or group of citizens get subverted enough to cause a general uprising amongst the electorate. The mechanism is there for the states to act and always has been. We, as the people, simply fail to act until we're about to go over the cliff......
Posted by: Big Bang Hunter at March 17, 2005 08:12 AM
- But to respond to your questions more directly. The proper recognition for all black Americans, uniformly applied throughout the Union, was pretty straightforward in retrospect. On the other hand I see nothing inconsistant with a question like same sex marrauge, as being the providence of individual states, and the wishes of that states electorate. That provides freedom of choice, and while not ideal, does in fact, offer a viable societal position. You used the word "evolving constitution", while others have used the term "living document". Thank god for all our sakes it is.....
- I view the constitution as a "position paper" which anunciates the agreed to unanimous postion of the Union as a whole in regards to "National" issues, where the individual state constitutions retain the sovereign rights of self determination and identity, mandating those differences in choice and governance for each state, through the choices of the people and that states legislature and governering documents....
- Having said that, simply throwing up your hands and advocating judicial legislating because you're unhappy or impatient with the ponderous nature of our system is an invite to chaos. As Darleen has rightly pointed out, if you go down that path then theres no point in having a legislature at all...
- And exactly because the constitution is "evolving" and pliable is a two edged sword. Do not be so quick to discount the fears of many people that large shifts in societal moree's can be a slippery slope. It is not so apparent that the lines can be drawn or the brakes applied so easily whenever precidents are set. What may be a viable cause today for the rights of same sex couples could become a social acceptance of certain forms of incest, or a breakdown in age limits of consent in time. The point being that there are good aspects to the idea that we move slowly in some ways.....
Posted by: Big Bang Hunter at March 17, 2005 09:20 AM
The proper recognition for all black Americans, uniformly applied throughout the Union, was pretty straightforward in retrospect
No, BBH, there was nothing straightforward about it, and if you studied history a little more carefully you would realize that the abolition of slavery and subsequent civil rights legislation (each episode a century apart) that gave black Americans "proper recognition" was a long and winding and very, very bloody path.
Do you know how to respond directly to anything?
I asked you, since your arguments smack of Federalist Society values, whether you think the Confederacy was right.
Posted by: Brad at March 17, 2005 10:36 AM
- My "arguments" don't smack of anything son. I was referring to the ultimate overwhelming ground swell of legislation once some very brave Americans died riding the bus. So don't fk'ng lecture Me on anything having to do with history....I've been alive longer than you've been out of diapers. As much as you'd like to ignore the truth of what you're being shown by insisting on this federalist nonsense, I'll just assume if you continue you're incapable of learning. I answered you sophomoric questions with curtesy, but you've spent that good will with me at this point.
Posted by: Big Bang Hunter at March 17, 2005 03:04 PM
Thanks Big Bang,
You always betray your lack of maturity and intelligence with remarks like that
Posted by: Brad at March 18, 2005 06:05 AM
- well at least you're good at copy and paste. Any original thoughts?...
Posted by: Big Bang Hunter at March 18, 2005 09:08 AM
These conversations always degrade to this. In the meantime I have been learning a lot in my conversation with Darleen via email. She and I always learn from each other, even though we disagree, the arguments are thoughtful and smart and always devoid of personal attacks. She may not get me, but at least she can see where I am coming from and how I formed my opinion and visaversa. Brad, you have been a witness to it all, it saddens me when the conversations of contrasting ideas is reduced to this.
Posted by: Mieke at March 18, 2005 11:43 AM
- Mieke. Had you addressed some of my points with counters instead of attacking right off the bat, in fact if you wrote the same as you do in your emails when you're debating issues, then you might not find yourself dissapointed so often. When you choose to attack because you feel your arguments are lacking and get the piano dropped on your snarky head, then don't whine at the results.
Posted by: Big Bang Hunter at March 18, 2005 11:58 AM
I didn't attack right off the bat. If you look back at our first contact a few weeks ago, you'll see it was actually you who came out guns ablazin', making gross generalizations about who you thought I was, what I believe, and all the other things you love to do. You may get off on that type of discourse, I don't. It's counter productive.
I am actually interested in finding middle ground with people; finding points of view to agree on or , if that is not possible, which happens, to understand how they have formed their opinion. We will get no where as individuals or a country if we just stay entrenched in our point of view. I am listening to Darleen. I am agreeing or disagreeing, but I am listening to what she has to say.
Which just in this conversation/strand you failed to notice and once again. You say I have no point of view when clearly I do. You say I have “ad hominem attacks” - I don’t even know what that means. You tell me I attack rather than defend my point of view –uh no. That’s actually what you do. Attack, attack, attack. You accuse me of attacking because my arguments are lacking? That’s a convenient point of view and a great system you have come up over the years to validate that you are right when people turn their back on you; but really all it means is that people have figured out you aren’t interested in conversations but just in blowing their hair back with the volume and vitriol you include with your sanctimonious opinions.
Posted by: Mieke at March 18, 2005 05:35 PM
- Hmmm lets see. Before I so much as posted a single entry on this thread you lead off with this:
"So sad to see BBH is back with his wild and inane blathering. I'll communicate with you via email Darleen.
His participation in this conversation in nothing but noise."
- Aside from wanting to ask you who the hell you think you are lets just say "no of course you didn't start off attacking"... yeh...heh....right
Since I started trying to excersize my first amendment rights, which all leftists hate if its anyone commenting but them, its been:
Mieke contributions to the topic: 0 words
Mieke wussy whining or attacks: 435 words
If you're that afraid of debating me just shut your eyes and skip over my posts.
Posted by: Big Bang Hunter at March 18, 2005 07:34 PM
- I'm sorry Mieke. you just keep sounding dumber and dumber. I don't know how Darleen puts up with you. But she does and I respect her for that. I won't go any further with this. You're just too badly outclassed. So theres no point. But until Darleen tells me I'm not welcome here I'll continue to express my honest opinions, and if that gives the braindead liberals heartburn too bad. You're on permenent /idiot ignore.
Posted by: Big Bang Hunter at March 18, 2005 07:51 PM
Your memory fails you. Your first words to me were this,you don't know me and yet you call me an "asshat" whatever that is.:
No Mieke .... No its not funny actually....its yet another specious left wingnut analogy between a pair of things that have absolutely no equivalency whatsoever....Byrd actually made a spoken reference to the Republican Senators as emulating Hitler. Why....Because they had the temerity to say they weren't going to put up with any more philibustering BS from the "Party of Obstructionism". No one with a working brain cell at this point thinks its anything but just another attempt to stall so the GD liberal judges won't get their asses booted out and stop all the "legislating" from the bench.....thats it - pure and simple.....
But I don't blame you AssHats on the left for scrapping and scrapping and toturing logic in any way you can because right now you're all looking like just a bunch of brain dead, misguided, sore losers.....
...you prattled for years on and on about womens rights and tolorance and better rights for blacks and gay rights....and then what do you do....You out a man just to be mean spirited .... your lefty MSM cartoonists drawn the most varilent racist cartoons I think I've ever seen in 60 years just because the subject is a brilliant conservative lady who happens to be black.....
- You guys in a word are totally F'd Up and whacked out of your skulls.... the only thing remaining is for your party to be burried to save you further embarissment. and the Dean you rode in on.....
- and I didn't even begin to cover all your vitriolic screeds and hyphocritical ironies. what do you guys do..... Keep rooting for the damn enemy..... pretty soon you'll be just a sad memory in political History.....
Posted by: Big Bang Hunter at March 2, 2005 10:29 PM
You are clearly a simple man. And now I am really done with you. Chaio.
Posted by: Mieke at March 18, 2005 09:57 PM
- mieke - if you look in the nearest mirror you'll see what an asshat is... if you can see at all with your head up your ass... the "chiao" gave you away... I was right about you girlie-boy all along.... *chuckle*
Posted by: Big Bang Hunter at March 19, 2005 08:59 AM
I am woman you moron!
Posted by: Mieke at March 19, 2005 09:23 AM
- Heh.... that makes it even worse... you need to take a valium and chill... badly.... *chuckle*
Posted by: Big Bang Hunter at March 19, 2005 10:05 AM