Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Gay Marriage Ruling Stirs Lobbying Furor in Massachusetts

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
rodbarnett Donating Member (577 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-04 01:55 PM
Original message
Gay Marriage Ruling Stirs Lobbying Furor in Massachusetts
BOSTON (AP) - Grandparents and children have been transformed into lobbyists. Parishioners are getting political advice during church services. Lawmakers have been so bombarded with e-mail that some have shut down their computer servers to catch up.
Fierce lobbying for and against gay marriage is under way in Massachusetts, where the nation's first legally sanctioned same-sex weddings could take place as early as this spring because of a groundbreaking ruling from the state's highest court.

The court has given legislators little or no way to prevent it from happening come May.

Instead, the lobbying is focusing ever more closely on next week's constitutional convention, where lawmakers will consider an amendment that would effectively overturn the ruling and ban gay marriage if ratified by the voters in 2006.

The debate has put this famously liberal state at the very center of one of the

http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGAKLPU7BQD.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Hamlette Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-04 02:04 PM
Response to Original message
1. do you need a super majority to pass constitution amendment in MA?
does anyone know?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taeger Donating Member (914 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-04 02:05 PM
Response to Original message
2. A Giant Freaking Mess

This is what Republicans mean when they say "activist judges". It will validate everything that they say.

Mark my words. This WILL hurt Kerry in the heartland. He is likely connected to that crew while he was Lieutenant Governor of Massachusetts.

This ruling puts into question whether ANY legislature can regulate contracts between two parties. It is a giant mess.

It doesn't MATTER if the issue can or cannot be laid at Kerry's feet. In the eyes of VERY MANY, he will be guilty by association.

If Kerry wants ANY chance of winning the presidential nomination. He needs to DENOUNCE this ruling by the Massachusetts Supreme Court IMMEDIATELY. If he doesn't, Dems need to switch to a different candidate.

For your education there are A LOT of socially conservative Democrats out there. They voted for Bush over Clinton's perceived moral issues. They will vote AGAINST Kerry if Republicans can associate Kerry with these justices.

It's a giant freaking mess. The Massachusetts legislature WANTED to grant civil unions. But that WAS NOT ENOUGH. Now there will be a GIANT backlash!!!!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodbarnett Donating Member (577 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-04 02:08 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Reuters : Gay Marriage Ruling Could Be Problem for Kerry
Here is a thread that is discussing the MESS

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
David__77 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-04 02:10 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. Marriage equality is right.
Actually, the only reason that anyone was talking about civil unions--ever--was because of the perceived "threat" of marriage equality becoming a reality. Yes, there are Democrats opposed to this. But I, as both a gay person and a civil rights supporter, will fight for what is just regardless of if it may effect candidate A or B. Desegregation hurt Democrats too--so did the Voting Rights Act. Sometimes standing for the right thing means you face a consequence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
StClone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-04 02:16 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. Activist Judges
I think "Equal Protection" means equal protection you don't need to insert a term other than Enlightened Judges.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CaptAhab Donating Member (85 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-04 02:25 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. Activist judges? Okay, Rush Limbaugh...
What part of the following do you not understand?


Amendment XIV

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. 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.

...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taeger Donating Member (914 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-04 05:20 PM
Response to Reply #6
10. I resent that

No I'm not a dittohead. Nor do I really believe in the stereotype. And yes I DO understand the nature of the 14th amendment. I also understand that it was written primarily to address freed slaves. Remember, that argument that was used during Bush vs Gore??????

However, there IS a legitamite question regarding how deeply a judge can read the constitution. Failure to understand this will lead you to lose these discussions.

But this stereotype WILL be played over and over again. You are playing right into the hands of the "conservatives".

I believe that the 14th amendment was misapplied in Bush vs Gore. I also believe that it is being misapplied here as well. Because dammit, if it IS the proper interpretation, it will cause utter legal chaos.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sidpleasant Donating Member (376 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-06-04 09:30 AM
Response to Reply #10
30. Guys, get your facts right
>>I believe that the 14th amendment was misapplied in Bush vs Gore. I also believe that it is being misapplied here as well<<

The case in Massachusetts has nothing to do with the 14th amendment to the US constitution. It's about the constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, specifically articles 1, 6, 7, 10, 12 and 16. You can read the entire advisory opinion here:

MA Supreme Judicial Court Majority Opinion

I particularly like this part of Article 7 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights: "Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for the profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family or class of men." Too bad we don't have such a clause in the US Constitution, it would render unconstitional the entire Bush administration.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
David__77 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-06-04 10:52 AM
Response to Reply #30
34. Indeed, this about MASSACHUSETTS' constition, not the US one.
You are right. This point needs to be made. The MA constitution gives more rights than enumerated in the US one. That's what these state constitutions are for actually. Constitutions are enumerating mimimum rights. And states should be free to give more civil rights if they choose.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
denverbill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-04 02:25 PM
Response to Reply #2
8. I suppose you thought 'separate but equal' was good enough for schools?
It's time to move out of the dark ages. I'm not gay, but I see no reason in hell why gays shouldn't have the exact same rights that I do, including the right to take a partner of their choice, to leave that partner their belongings on death, to have that partner insured on their insurance, to visit their partner in the hospital if he/she is ill, etc.

Why do you think it's OK to allow hetero's the right to marry, but to deny that right to gays?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taeger Donating Member (914 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-04 05:34 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. Black is NOT the same thing as homosexual

Have you seen many gay water fountains and gay bathroom facilities. What about gay schools? So far only one in New York and thats segregation by choice.

Gays DO have the right to marry. They simply aren't allowed to marry someone of the same gender.

This is the fundamental problem is that no one is DENIED access to this contract. The contract is specified in such a way to sanction a particular type of relationship.

BTW, I hope that gay marriage is ultimately accepted. But this is a democracy and the people have the right to determine these things. The Black discrimination thing was a WHOLE other universe. Being black is something basic to a person. It wasn't something someone could hide (in most cases). It was some EXTRAORDINARILY pernicious.

Comparing gay "rights" to black rights only undermines your argument.

This will likely result in a FEDERAL constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage. Democrats will have no choice but to go along with this now. There is a very real possibility that this ruling could lead to an automatic sanction of gay marriage EVERYWHERE!!! That is, a state won't be ABLE to forbid it.

The support for gay marriage is simply not out there. In fact, the public seems VERY hostile toward the idea in both north AND south.

No, this Massachusetts ruling has set the gay marriage issue back twenty years. You watch and see how swift the reaction to this is.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Calico4000 Donating Member (83 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-04 06:07 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. You can bet your ass
Edited on Thu Feb-05-04 06:10 PM by Calico4000
"Have you seen many gay water fountains and gay bathroom facilities. What about gay schools? So far only one in New York and thats segregation by choice. "

That if gays could not hide they would be subject to the same (and perhaps worse) treatment that non-whites faced 50 years ago. If gays had a blatant unique physical characteristic do you REALLY believe they would (esp. 50 years ago) be treated anywhere NEAR as well? You can't really be hateful to someone because of their sexuality until you know what that sexuality is now can you?

Are you REALLY telling me that if gays could be easily identified they wouldn't have been segregated just like non-whites 50 years ago? Get real.

In fact - I would go so far to say that in the 1700s we would even have seen genocide if they could have been identified. (they burned witches, I'm sure they would have had no problem doing the same to gays)

Sorry to use profanity in my first post, but I just had to register to say something about this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
area51 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-04 08:34 PM
Response to Reply #12
21. Welcome
Welcome to DU, Calico4000.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
David__77 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-04 06:24 PM
Response to Reply #11
14. National marriage equality is a goal.
Do you support marriage equality or not? I think that saying that gay people can "hide" their orientation and implying that this makes their oppression somehow benign is wrong-headed. Jewish people also throughout the centuries fled into the closet and posed as Christians, keeping the Torah in under the bed. I don't think that this somehow makes the oppression any better than with more obvious physical characteristics. But even there, I know many who were tagged as gay long before they even knew it themselves.

No, there are no "gay water fountains." But there are jobs and housing and other things that gay people are excluded from. It's not "separate but equal"--it's just plain old unequal!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taeger Donating Member (914 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-04 07:11 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. Not the same as being Jewish

No, it's not remotely the same as Jews who faced persecution under the inquisition. Violence against gays DOES happen. And it happens at times specifically because people ARE gay.

But to claim that their is an epidemic of gay violence is simply ridiculous.

Does sexual orientation really come up in conversation that much??? Do most businesses really CARE if someone is gay. I happen to know that a LOT of Fortune 500 companies willingly extend benefits to gay spouses even though they don't need to. At the same time, they often take heat for it.

If a person doesn't make a big deal about being gay, it's typically not an issue. There are certain prejudices that will always remain. But you can't legislate that away.

This is an issue as to whether society wishes to bestow the title of "marriage" on gay couples. This has NEVER been the case in the past. Marriage has a very well defined past. Same sex relationships have NEVER been involved.

Please, settle for Civil Unions. In twenty years, it won't be such a big deal. Than maybe society will bestow that label. In the mean time, your only giving aid and comfort to your enemy. And if you leave HIM in the White House, you probably won't even get civil unions.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-04 09:26 PM
Response to Reply #16
28. Who the hell is turning down civil unions anyway?
"Please, settle for Civil Unions."

Who is offering them as an alternative? Who is refusing them?

The court - not gay people - made the decision.

And I love the people saying "Take civil unions instead" as if anyone has been pushing for them!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
David__77 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-06-04 10:49 AM
Response to Reply #16
33. You can't "legislate racism away" either, however...
the law should stand on this side of justice. The law should not perpetuate racism, sexism, or oppression of gay people. You really underestimate the level of animosity and discrimination against gay people and ascribe traits to them that are untrue. Ask any young gay person who has walked down the street and had the audacity to hold hands with their boyfriend or girlfriend if they faced problems because of it. You're saying that we shouldn't be gay at all with your logic, or should really try to conceal as well as possible or we're responsible for the consequences. You're free to think that if that's how you feel, but that view is neither just nor progressive. We can't win on workers' rights or on racism if we don't fight all oppression. On the other hand, just because I'm gay doesn't mean I put my struggle above others' struggles.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pinto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-04 06:28 PM
Response to Reply #11
15. Gays "DO" have the right to marry, but not the same gender?
FIND ANOTHER ARGUMENT.

You did better before.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taeger Donating Member (914 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-04 07:13 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. Yes

This is why it's NOT an equal protection issue. You have the same rights as a straight person. You have the right to marry a person of the opposite sex. You have NOT been discriminated in terms of the law.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-04 09:22 PM
Response to Reply #17
26. Baloney
If men are allowed to marry women, but women aren't allowed to marry women, they don't have the same right.

Your lame argument was used in Loving v Virginia, saying whites could marry whites, blacks could marry blacks so they were equal, therefore no equal protection issue.

In Loving v Virginia it was wrong. And it still is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
foreigncorrespondent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-04 08:20 PM
Response to Reply #11
19. Oh that's right...
...you have the approach of "Oh I am black. We are the only race/group of people to have ever bee discriminated against." Get a life bucko!

You tell us queers we have the right to marry, only not marry the person we are IN LOVE with!

Where do you come off telling me that for the last four years of my life that I have been with Sapphocrat, experiencing all the pain that comes with being torn apart from her, because her country does discriminate against queers, all the love we have shared, has all been for nothing. That we should just shut the fuck up, and move on, away from one another and find some bloke to marry? How bloody well dare you invalidate our feelings and our relationship like that.

As a white non American woman, I certainly realize the injustice that has been served upon your community. But you had bloody well better sit back and bloody well realize that what your community went through is indeed similar to what the queer community is experiencing now!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pinto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-04 02:33 PM
Response to Reply #2
9. some points:
Edited on Thu Feb-05-04 02:34 PM by pinto
"activist judges": - I know this is the buzz from the right, yet the Mass court was clear about their stand as a constitutional issue in the state. also, they were asked to consider the issue by the legislature and, as is their job, made a constitutional decision on the legislature's request (which was would civil union pass constitutional test). this court has a history of strict constitutional decisions. (imho, the legislature can put forth an amendment to the state constitution if they want, which I assume will happen)

"contract between two parties: if a contract, as in this case, marriage, is contested and shown to be unconstitutional, it would be in question. otherwise, no.

Bush vs Clinton votes: Clinton never ran against George W,
he ran against Bush the first and then against Dole, carried Mass against both. In 2000, Gore ran against George W and carried the state.

Mass legislature: requested the court's clarification and, yes, decision on constitutional question.

Overall, I agree it will be a flame war from the right about this, but the court took the only ethical and constitutional position they could, as, again, is their job....




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
foreigncorrespondent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-04 08:11 PM
Response to Reply #2
18. Yes.
Tell us annoying queers to get back in the closet and shut the fuck up.

It doesn't matter what we are the ones facing being deemed second class citizens.

It doesn't matter that we don't have the rights we were born with.

It doesn't matter that Bush* lied and people died.

It doesn't matter that 9/11 happened on Bush*s watch.

It doesn't matter that Bush* went after Saddam instead of continuing the pursuit for Osama Been Forgotten.

It doesn't matter that the Bush* administration is the most corrupt United States presidential administration the world has ever seen.

Just so long as we get in the closet and shut the fuck up, to suit YOU, and the many people like YOU!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mikhale Donating Member (99 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-04 08:21 PM
Response to Reply #18
20. Tally Ho!
You go grrrrl!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mikhale Donating Member (99 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-04 08:55 PM
Response to Reply #2
24. We're here, we're...
well, you know the rest. Let's push those Republican buttons. Let's go to the South and film sound bites of * spewing prejudice and ignorance in order to placate his bigoted base. Let's play those sound bites nationwide until the tape wears out. I'll introduce the first one: "Hi, I'm Mikhale, and if I can find the right guy, then I'm going to single-handedly destroy Western Civilization!" Make full GLBT rights to civil marriage not an issue, but THE issue. After all, what law does * want Republican judges to employ against us, Sharia? An' yew Yankees thought us Southe'n boys wuz stoopid.
It won't go away, and only one candidate is prepared to win that fight:
Go Dennis!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cooley Hurd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-04 09:06 PM
Response to Reply #2
25. This will have little effect on Kerry in the General Election...
People hate Shrub so much, this issue won't matter in the GE. Besides, the fundies weren't going to vote Dem, anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-04 09:25 PM
Response to Reply #2
27. If it hurts, it hurts
If it hurts Kerry then it hurts him.

We'll have to live with it.

No one would dream of saying forbidding interracial marriage, or neighborhoods that exclude Jews should be tolerated because it might hurt a candidate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodbarnett Donating Member (577 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-04 02:25 PM
Response to Original message
7. CBS : What Next In Gay Marriage Fight?
(CBS/AP) Despite Massachusetts' highest court allowing same-sex marriages by summer, legislators opposed to the concept were weighing options to try to circumvent the ruling either through a law or a constitutional amendment.

"The court has overstepped its boundary and has not let the legislative process to unfold the way it has on other issues," said Rep. Eugene O'Flaherty.

The 4-3 advisory ruling Wednesday by the Supreme Judicial Court creates a legislative dilemma that could force many uneasy lawmakers to choose sides on a contentious social issue.

The court Wednesday doused one compromise option, ruling that gay couples were entitled to all the benefits of marriage and that Vermont-style civil unions don't go far enough. That ruling came in response to lawmakers' questions about an earlier decision requiring changes to laws on gay couples.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/02/04/politics/main...

comment : the media is having a field day on this issue
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dusty64 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-04 06:17 PM
Response to Original message
13. The church needs to
lose its tax exempt status immediately. If they want to get involved in political advocacy and work hard to deny citizens equality they should be forced to pay up like the rest of us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rockholm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-06-04 09:51 AM
Response to Reply #13
32. I agree! While we are at it....
Take way the non-profit status of organizations like Focus on the Family, Family Reseach Council, etc. I like the bumper sticker "Focus on Your Own Damn Family" I saw the other day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kathy in Cambridge Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-04 08:35 PM
Response to Original message
22. the Catholic Church in Mass. Should Shut the F*** Up
Considering all the $$ they have spent defending pedophile priests, they have no right judging anybody. They should keep their noses out of politics and let people live their lives as they see fit.

BTW the judges that voted FOR the ruling are REPUBLICANS appointed by Governors Weld and Celluccis.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rockholm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-06-04 09:47 AM
Response to Reply #22
31. For ALL the Massachusetts DU members reading this...
I have been working the phone and e-mail from home this morning. It is amazing the responses and conversations that I am getting into with the foks answering the phones in the offices I am calling. It REALLY works! They have all told me that phones call DO MATTER. I called one state rep who's boss is actually pissed that Archbishop O'Malley is threatening Catholic lawmakers. Where was the outrage at child molestation? This guy was great! Call your legislators! One woman in an office said that they are getting calls from out of state and they just discard those. ONe guy I spoke to said that Romney is poll driven. I sent an e-mail. It really does make a difference.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LostInTheMaise Donating Member (250 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-04 08:43 PM
Response to Original message
23. This whole thing will implode
Sadly, America is not ready for full gay marriage.

Don't kid yourselves. It will end in tears.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
David__77 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-06-04 10:55 AM
Response to Reply #23
35. Potentially this is irrelevant.
Frankly, I'm not concerned with getting a majority to support same-sex marriage right now. It simply won't happen until AFTER same-sex marriage has already existed for several years--it's the same with desegregation in the south and more widespread interracial marriage an so forth. It won't take a majority to enact marriage equality. It will only take a third of a house of congress to block an amendment--it will indeed by progressive Democrats, hopefully joined by some friendly Republican moderates.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Endangered Specie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-05-04 11:56 PM
Response to Original message
29. Guess you could call it a Mass Firestorm
Get it MASS.?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lcooksey Donating Member (373 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Feb-06-04 01:26 PM
Response to Original message
36. As much a loser issue for * as Kerry
Conservatives aren't likely to vote for Kerry, regardless of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts. Moderates probably care more about being un- or under-employed, and about having relatives in Iraq, than they do about this issue. Same-sex marriage isn't going to make liberals less likely to vote ABB.

If Bush continues to say he thinks same-sex marriage is icky, but won't back a Constitutional amendment, he'll piss off a fair number of conservatives who will stay home in November. It is very telling that in this week's big Prayer Breakfast he didn't even bring up the subject.

If he does back an amendment, he'll piss off moderates -- even though a majority of people oppose same-sex marriage, an even larger majority oppose amending the Constitution. Those likely to vote for Kerry will be even more likely to, those leaning toward Bush will get a nudge toward Kerry.

I think this will cost Shrubya as many or more votes than it gives to him.

Legally married in the eyes of God and Canada,
Laura
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Aug 28th 2014, 07:24 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC