Prop 8

Page 21 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: Craig234
Your comment about black opposition is right on. Sadly, anti-gay bigotry is high among blacks. Some don't seem too able to generalize the idea of civil rights beyond 'for blacks'.

I'm not sure that's correct. If there was a group of green people who had been dragged from their home continent and enslaved for hundreds of years, and upon being "freed" had to fight over a century more for equal rights, I'm pretty sure blacks would support that group. I think they simply don't see gays as having gone through what they did, and might be insulted by the comparison. Blacks, after all, are not the only group who doesn't see gay marriage as a civil rights issue.

Gays haven't suffered enough? Maybe some people don't appreciate how they have, but they've had to live in closets for millenia in ways blacks never have.

Black suffering has clearly been worse, but this is not a contest where second place doesn't deserve justice.

Tell Alan Turing his civil rights weren't an issue, tell the gay teens with such a terrible suicide rate theirs are not important.

You are right that some blacks are offended by comparisons between the civil rights for them and for gays. And I'm offended by their offense.

Civil rights are civil rights.

When the issue is only for self-interested civil rights, there will be a lack of civil rights.

I think blacks have an obligation to stand for the same principles that so many stood for to help end the terrible bigotry in our laws against them, and support equality for gays.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,279
6,638
126
Originally posted by: Ryan
What arguments are their for banning same sex marriage outside of religious contexts?!?! If the government is willing and able to marry individuals REGARDLESS of their religious beliefs, does that not mean the current system acts without influence of religion? If the government will marry two atheists, what the fuck does religion have to do with marriage from the government's perspective?

Don't want gay marriage? Don't marry a gay person.

Do you seriously believe that people who expect gays to be gay so long as they don't practice, are not going to shove their own beliefs up other people's asses? You don't know much about hypocrites.
 

Corbett

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2005
3,074
0
76
Originally posted by: Craig234

Judgemental yes, bigoted no. But I'm happy not to look at you too much.

There's no irony in pointing out bigotry.

You are confused about the polls and the 2000 election, but in short it sounds like you are pointing out some contradiction between my citing polls showing a majorit yopposing the ban on gay marriage, and the election's 52-48 result supporting the ban? I don't know what your point is, but since you seem to have managed to avoid any facts:

The polls I cited were cited accurately, and they showed svarying levels of opposition. Later in the race, the bigots, like the Mormon Church, poured in millions, and polls shifted.

Do you have a point not addressed by that summary?

Yes, the point is, you have justified in the past the overturning by the courts the initiative that passed in 2000 because you said the polls now overwhelmingly show that the same measure would NOT pass today. Well, Tuesday, your theory was proven wrong.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: Corbett
Originally posted by: Craig234

Judgemental yes, bigoted no. But I'm happy not to look at you too much.

There's no irony in pointing out bigotry.

You are confused about the polls and the 2000 election, but in short it sounds like you are pointing out some contradiction between my citing polls showing a majorit yopposing the ban on gay marriage, and the election's 52-48 result supporting the ban? I don't know what your point is, but since you seem to have managed to avoid any facts:

The polls I cited were cited accurately, and they showed svarying levels of opposition. Later in the race, the bigots, like the Mormon Church, poured in millions, and polls shifted.

Do you have a point not addressed by that summary?

Yes, the point is, you have justified in the past the overturning by the courts the initiative that passed in 2000 because you said the polls now overwhelmingly show that the same measure would NOT pass today. Well, Tuesday, your theory was proven wrong.

He was off by 8 years or so.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: Corbett
Originally posted by: Craig234

Judgemental yes, bigoted no. But I'm happy not to look at you too much.

There's no irony in pointing out bigotry.

You are confused about the polls and the 2000 election, but in short it sounds like you are pointing out some contradiction between my citing polls showing a majorit yopposing the ban on gay marriage, and the election's 52-48 result supporting the ban? I don't know what your point is, but since you seem to have managed to avoid any facts:

The polls I cited were cited accurately, and they showed svarying levels of opposition. Later in the race, the bigots, like the Mormon Church, poured in millions, and polls shifted.

Do you have a point not addressed by that summary?

Yes, the point is, you have justified in the past the overturning by the courts the initiative that passed in 2000 because you said the polls now overwhelmingly show that the same measure would NOT pass today. Well, Tuesday, your theory was proven wrong.

I never said that overturning the 2000 measure was justified because public opinion has shifted on the issue. That's not what determines whether the ruling is justified.
 

Corbett

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2005
3,074
0
76
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Corbett
Originally posted by: Craig234

Judgemental yes, bigoted no. But I'm happy not to look at you too much.

There's no irony in pointing out bigotry.

You are confused about the polls and the 2000 election, but in short it sounds like you are pointing out some contradiction between my citing polls showing a majorit yopposing the ban on gay marriage, and the election's 52-48 result supporting the ban? I don't know what your point is, but since you seem to have managed to avoid any facts:

The polls I cited were cited accurately, and they showed svarying levels of opposition. Later in the race, the bigots, like the Mormon Church, poured in millions, and polls shifted.

Do you have a point not addressed by that summary?

Yes, the point is, you have justified in the past the overturning by the courts the initiative that passed in 2000 because you said the polls now overwhelmingly show that the same measure would NOT pass today. Well, Tuesday, your theory was proven wrong.

I never said that overturning the 2000 measure was justified because public opinion has shifted on the issue. That's not what determines whether the ruling is justified.

If I had the time I would pull up the old thread it was discussed in, but I don't so you're off the hook for now. Maybe I will have time soon though.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: CrackRabbit
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: CrackRabbit
This issue won't be over for a long time, and it will likely take the Federal government's heavy handed involvement to sort it out.

We finally have a government who can do something on the issue - too bad the executive branch painted itself in a bit of a corner on the issue in the campaign.

I suspect nothing's going to be done on it the first year, probably longer, just as JFK put off unpopulat civil rights legislation early in his presidecy.

I'm not even talking about legislation yet.
I have a feeling that some of the legal challenges that have occurred already will make it to the US supreme court. How they will rule on it one could only guess.
My feeling is that it (and all of the other DOMA type laws) violate the 14th amendment.
If they rule against the challenges it could seriously hurt the 14th amendment itself.

I agree, but this is the worst Supreme Court in decades (period, but also) for hearing the issue.

LunarRay assures me that, if they rule by president and the law, a ban on same sex marriage will be ruled unconstitutional. The law is very clear that separate but equal is not equal.


Well... Yes!.... IF the SCOTUS visit a case and choose to FINALLY decide that Baker v Nelson (a Minnesota case that the SCOTUS ruled presented no Federal Issue, ie... States can elect to ban 'Gay Marriage') is Unconstitutional we can have unity in the nation. OR conversely let it continue to stand as the controlling case on this issue.

The issue for me is the fundamental right of the individual to get married to whom ever they choose. Loving v Virginia ended racial issues in marriage. Brown v BofE ended the segregation issue but also set up the notion of Separate is Not equal....
In the issue of... 'Well they can have Partnerships etc. and have the benefits of marriage' We find that this is NOT TRUE... especially in Federal Benefits - some 1138 of them - that only Married folks as defined by the Federal Law get... they are very important ones...
So Separate IS NEVER equal... ever ever...

Em are the realities... Since it is legal to be Gay it must be legal to be a married Gay.... think about it...

Regarding the bigot and their notions and reasons ... it is nothing more than the same belief held by the folks who didn't want Blacks or Irish or Chinese or Indians or what have you... having the same status as they had... All that has to change and it will...
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus
Originally posted by: BoomerD
The next big issue will be to reinstate the ban on inter-racial marriages. After all, if Adam and Steve can't get married, why should Lakiesha and Billy Bob be allowed to get married?

One of the arguments for Prop 8 I heard repeated here was that if 8 gets defeated, that would open the door for the legalization of polyamy and perhaps other "un-Christian" forms of marriage...:roll:

I see no issues with that.

The issues are always confounded by dragging in non related and illegal conditions... It is legal for two persons who are Gay and of the same sex to marry under the law... just not to each other. Two persons each holding a fundamental right to marry are denied their rights by assertions much like the racial insanity not long ago.
We stand up and demand our Rights and defend them against anyone who'd seek to deny them... Freedom... Happiness... and etc... But yet.. there are some who'd deny others the same Rights we demand.. In California so many... sadly, so many have in their mind an absence of how fragile their rights become when they deny others theirs...
 

sportage

Lifer
Feb 1, 2008
11,492
3,162
136
Rights and law should only be decided by courts.
What has been done in Ca. is nothing short of a group lynching
of civil rights.
This will be headed to the US Supreme court, as it should be.
And it should succeed, nullifying any and all state amendments.
Issues like this can not be left to the states.
Civil rights must be uniform across the country.



 

Mr. Lennon

Diamond Member
Jul 2, 2004
3,492
1
81
Originally posted by: sportage
Rights and law should only be decided by courts.
What has been done in Ca. is nothing short of a group lynching
of civil rights.
This will be headed to the US Supreme court, as it should be.
And it should succeed, nullifying any and all state amendments.
Issues like this can not be left to the states.
Civil rights must be uniform across the country.

I agree, this battle isn't over yet.

The populace should never be able to vote against minorities when it comes to equal human rights. If we left it to the people to decide on african american rights, they would most likely be slaves still.

I cant wait until this is overturned by the supreme court....the tears of bible thumpers around the USA will be priceless.

 

1prophet

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2005
5,313
534
126
How dare do those white republican bigots deny people their civil rights, oh wait.



Most Calif. blacks backed proposition 8
53 percent of Latinos also supported the gay-marriage ban

LOS ANGELES, Nov. 6 - Any notion that Tuesday's election represented a liberal juggernaut must overcome a detail from the voting booths of California: The same voters who turned out strongest for Barack Obama also drove a stake through the heart of same-sex marriage.

Seven in 10 African Americans who went to the polls voted yes on Proposition 8, the ballot measure overruling a state Supreme Court judgment that legalized same-sex marriage and brought 18,000 gay and lesbian couples to Golden State courthouses in the past six months.

Similar measures passed easily in Florida and Arizona. It was closer in California, but no ethnic group anywhere rejected the sanctioning of same-sex unions as emphatically as the state's black voters, according to exit polls. Fifty-three percent of Latinos also backed Proposition 8, <overcoming the bare majority of white Californians who voted to let the court ruling stand.

The outcome that placed two pillars of the Democratic coalition -- minorities and gays -- at opposite ends of an emotional issue sparked street protests in Los Angeles and a candlelight vigil in San Francisco. To gay rights advocates, the issue was one of civil rights. Attorney General Edmund G. "Jerry" Brown Jr. reworded the ballot language to state that a yes vote was a vote to "eliminate the rights of same-sex couples to marry."

That appeal ran head-on into a well-funded and well-framed advertising campaign in favor of the ban -- and the deeply ingrained religious beliefs of an African American community that largely declined to see the issue through a prism of equality.

"I think it's mainly because of the way we were brought up in the church; we don't agree with it," said Jasmine Jones, 25, who is black. "I'm not really the type that I wanted to stop people's rights. But I still have my beliefs, and if I can vote my beliefs that's what I'm going to do.

"God doesn't approve it, so I don't approve it. And I approve of Him."

The overwhelming rejection of same-sex marriage by black voters was surprising and disappointing to gay rights advocates who had hoped that African Americans would empathize with their struggle.

"I wasn't surprised by the Latinos," said Steve Smith, senior consultant for No on 8. "Basically, Latinos and the Anglo population were fairly close. The outlier of the proposition was African Americans. Many are churchgoing; many had ministers tell them to vote."


Indeed, Proposition 8 promoters worked closely with black churches across the state, encouraging ministers to deliver sermons in favor of the ban.

"What the church does is give that perspective that this is a sacred issue as well as a social issue," said Derek McCoy, African American outreach director for the Protect Marriage Campaign. "The reason I feel they came out so strong on the issue is one, for them, it's not a civil rights issue, it's a marriage issue. It's about marriage being between a man and a woman and it doesn't cut into the civil rights issue, about equality.

"The gay community was never considered a third of a person."


Black residents agreed with that reasoning in interviews at a Culver City mall on Thursday. David Blannon, 73, who opposed the measure, said his wife summed up her yes vote in one sentence: " 'As far as I'm concerned, that's not something I read in the Bible.' And let it go at that," he said.

But Kesha Young, 32, called religious arguments a cover for persistent prejudices rooted elsewhere. Taboos against homosexuality are exceptionally strong in Africa, McCoy acknowledged.

"I'm going to tell you something about the black race: We love to pass judgment. I think that's just a smoke screen about the church thing," said Young, a licensed vocational nurse.

Anthony Maurice-White, 31, who is gay, said he learned early in life to keep his sexual orientation to himself around fellow blacks as a matter of routine. "Closed minds," he said in the mall parking lot. "And they're afraid of change."

His friend Ike Young, 21, nodded agreement. "I'm straight, but I think a lot of people are bi-curious but they're afraid of what family members will think of them," he said.

The Latino vote for the ban also appears rooted in culture.

"It's our tradition," said Flor Guardado, 38, who voted yes. "In Latino Central American culture, the gays aren't accepted."


Guardado said that in her native Honduras, she would not tell her mother if she had a lesbian friend. "If I had a lesbian friend, they'd think I was a lesbian, too," she said.

But in Los Angeles, where she owns a hair salon, a different kind of diplomacy obtains. All eight of her employees are gay. When they asked how she voted, she tells them it's a secret.

"I'm sorry for the gay people. They have feelings," said the mother of two. "Legally, I don't want that for the children. They will be confused and think it's okay. They might think they're gay, too."

Television commercials supporting the ban skirted the issue of rights, and instead declared that schools would treat same-sex marriage as normal. Even opponents acknowledged the ads as powerful and positioned to influence minority voters, whose children account for a disproportionate share of the public school population.

Pablo Correa said his mind was made up by a TV spot in which a young girl comes home from school and tells her mother she learned how a prince could marry a prince.

"Before, I didn't know about Proposition 8. When I saw the commercial, it opened my mind," said Correa, 42, standing in his beauty supply story in Boyle Heights, in heavily Latino East Los Angeles.

"I don't discriminate against people," he said, with a wave at the rows of lipstick and makeup. "I have a lot of customers who are homosexuals, transsexuals and bisexuals. I'm not against these people."


He added: "But I'm a traditionalist. I come from a traditional family. People can do whatever they want in their own life, but I have to protect my family."


Still, strategists for neither major party saw the outcome on Proposition 8 as an opening for Republicans to corral minority voters who share a socially conservative agenda.

"I think it's unclear that the social conservatism would trump economics," said Arnold Steinberg, a Republican strategist in Los Angeles. "Certainly with Latino voters there have been opportunities to market themselves on a socially conservative level. But the Republican Party has been too bumbling and irresponsible to do anything with it."

 
Dec 10, 2005
27,674
12,104
136
Originally posted by: 1prophet
How dare do those white republican bigots deny people their civil rights, oh wait.



"I don't discriminate against people," he said, with a wave at the rows of lipstick and makeup. "I have a lot of customers who are homosexuals, transsexuals and bisexuals. I'm not against these people."

He added: "But I'm a traditionalist. I come from a traditional family. People can do whatever they want in their own life, but I have to protect my family."

I must have missed where what two people do in their own, private life affects this dude's family.
 

GiggleGirl

Golden Member
Apr 18, 2008
1,607
0
0

Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: GiggleGirl
Originally posted by: chess9

I voted against it, but it was poorly worded. Careful reading required! The pro-traditional marriage people snuck that one past a lot of people, IMHO.

-Robert

oh yea it was absolutely worded in a way to deliberately confuse people. i read it three times to make sure i was voting NO to ban gay marriage.

Wrong. It was phrased that way by attorney general Jerry Brown (a historical liberal figure in California).

The proposition should have just said, "Do you want to amend the constitution to ban gay marriage OR to make marriage between a man and a women only." But he made it, "do you want to amend the constitution to remove the gay right to marry." _HE_ added the negative in there which confused things. And hopefully it's obvious why he phrased it that way (to make it seem more anti-gay).

the way it was written on my ballot was CONFUSING. so shut your lipppsss!




Originally posted by: manly
Originally posted by: seemingly random
I hope chambliss gets booted.
I don't particularly care about a filibuster-proof super-majority but I agree with you here. His campaign's 2002 TV ad was on par with Bush 2000's despicable attacks on McCain in South Carolina and worse than the "swift boating" of Kerry in 2004.

As for the few comments about CA Prop. 8, I don't recall the exact language now but it's not that confusing. It's an amendment to the state Constitution with a simple 50% majority vote; compare that to the extremely high standard to amend the U.S. Constitution.

LAT reports 70% of black voters voted yes. These are the same voters that overwhelmingly voted for Obama, with record turnout. Prop. 8 would have lost if not for the lying TV ads claiming public schools would teach gay marriage in grade school "whether you like it or not". Many voters bought the scare tactics hook, line & sinker. The No on 8 TV ads simply weren't that effective in explaining the civil rights issue to voters already prejudiced against gay marriage. I reject the confusion argument. As often as the ads ran and as much as the discussion flowed (in churches and workplaces for example), voters were clearly given the choice of banning gay marriage by voting yes. And by a modest margin, that's what they did.

i dont watch television. i have never even SEEN an ad on the proposition. all i know is that its wrong to deny people the right their own happiness.

 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: Brainonska511
Originally posted by: 1prophet
How dare do those white republican bigots deny people their civil rights, oh wait.



"I don't discriminate against people," he said, with a wave at the rows of lipstick and makeup. "I have a lot of customers who are homosexuals, transsexuals and bisexuals. I'm not against these people."

He added: "But I'm a traditionalist. I come from a traditional family. People can do whatever they want in their own life, but I have to protect my family."

I must have missed where what two people do in their own, private life affects this dude's family.

1940 in an ice cream shop:

"I don't discriminate against these people," he said, with a wave at the rows of blacks sitting in the colored section of the restaurant. "I have a lot of customers who are black. I'm not against these people. They can order whatever they want from the menu, same as the white folks."
 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,303
144
106
One Mormon family donates $50K to 'yes on prop 8' cause

yes that is $50,000!!!

holy _____ !!!

Their excuse was they did it for their children. How about they spend that money on their kids college education!??!

All I can say is...wow. For their sake, I hope they think they got their monies worth... I guess....

Another couple donated $35,000 to the 'yes on prop 8' camp.

TR Knight donated $100,000 to the 'no on 8' side.

I don't feel that strongly about this issue. I'd rather keep my damn money.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,279
6,638
126
Originally posted by: OrByte
One Mormon family donates $50K to 'yes on prop 8' cause

yes that is $50,000!!!

holy _____ !!!

Their excuse was they did it for their children. How about they spend that money on their kids college education!??!

All I can say is...wow. For their sake, I hope they think they got their monies worth... I guess....

Another couple donated $35,000 to the 'yes on prop 8' camp.

TR Knight donated $100,000 to the 'no on 8' side.

I don't feel that strongly about this issue. I'd rather keep my damn money.

Perhaps they are buying a ticket to heaven.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: OrByte
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Perhaps they are buying a ticket to heaven.
buying a 'clue' would have been cheaper.

Dear Mtumbe,

We deeply regret not being able to send your village the vaccine and food you needed. You've seen tough times before, you're just going to have to pull up your pants (if you are wearing any LOL) and suck it up a little longer. We had some really important things to do with the money. Can you believe there was a movement that urged that two people who love each other deeply and want the state to recognize that committment....but those two people are both men? I know, I know, we are sure that you support us in prioritizing a fight against this sin that almost was, and we hope to be able to get you some food and medicine by Christmas, not that you celebrate Christmas being a heathen, but that's neither here nor there. We're sorry about your dad and sister dying of starvation but God would not want us to abandon our mission here at home. Thanks for reading.

Love,
Caleb and Amberleigh Smith

ps. Our church donated over $20 Million to fight against the sin of gay marriage. How exciting is that!
 

sactoking

Diamond Member
Sep 24, 2007
7,630
2,891
136
Originally posted by: jonks
Dear Mtumbe,

We deeply regret not being able to send your village the vaccine and food you needed. You've see, we're still waiting for your Prince to send us our checks for $5,000,000 so we can help him clear them through an American Bank. For some reason, he hasn't responded to our inquiries after we told him what account to wire the money to. Thanks for reading.

Love,
Caleb and Amberleigh Smith

Fixed that
 

Mr. Lennon

Diamond Member
Jul 2, 2004
3,492
1
81
Originally posted by: Brainonska511
Originally posted by: 1prophet
How dare do those white republican bigots deny people their civil rights, oh wait.



"I don't discriminate against people," he said, with a wave at the rows of lipstick and makeup. "I have a lot of customers who are homosexuals, transsexuals and bisexuals. I'm not against these people."

He added: "But I'm a traditionalist. I come from a traditional family. People can do whatever they want in their own life, but I have to protect my family."

I must have missed where what two people do in their own, private life affects this dude's family.

Fucking stupid right?

They all think this way because of their churches and the TV ads.



WTS thinking for yourself, PST
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: Brainonska511
Originally posted by: 1prophet
How dare do those white republican bigots deny people their civil rights, oh wait.



"I don't discriminate against people," he said, with a wave at the rows of lipstick and makeup. "I have a lot of customers who are homosexuals, transsexuals and bisexuals. I'm not against these people."

He added: "But I'm a traditionalist. I come from a traditional family. People can do whatever they want in their own life, but I have to protect my family."

I must have missed where what two people do in their own, private life affects this dude's family.

That's the leap of logic I haven't quite grasped yet in this debate. If they are free to DO whatever they want in their own life, as this dude suggests, what possible different could it make what they CALL it?
 

dbk

Lifer
Apr 23, 2004
17,685
10
81
How could the blacks vote 9 to 1 for Obama, yet vote 7 to 3 against gay marriage? They couldn't make that connection? Didn't some of them live through this country when interracial marriages were against the law?
 

Syringer

Lifer
Aug 2, 2001
19,333
2
71
http://www.independent.co.uk/n...-backlash-1001083.html

Daniel Ginnes carried a banner declaring: "No More Mr Nice Gay." Brian Lindsey held up a sign billing Joseph Smith, founder of the Church of the Latter Day Saints, as a "prophet, polygamist, paedophile." Hundreds of others simply chanted: "Mormon scum."

Okay, as a rabid anti-prop 8 voter, I have to ask here--what's the point of this? Calling those who disagree with you names and protesting in their front lawns are going to do NOTHING to help change their minds and your cause. You're simply adding fuel to their fire and creating more separation between you and the other side.

If it were the other way around and had prop 8 failed to pass, and then the Mormons were congregating in the streets in the gay areas, calling them sinners and saying that they'll go to hell, that would be completely self defeating of their cause as well.

Can someone explain this?
 

ICRS

Banned
Apr 20, 2008
1,328
0
0
Originally posted by: Syringer
http://www.independent.co.uk/n...-backlash-1001083.html

Daniel Ginnes carried a banner declaring: "No More Mr Nice Gay." Brian Lindsey held up a sign billing Joseph Smith, founder of the Church of the Latter Day Saints, as a "prophet, polygamist, paedophile." Hundreds of others simply chanted: "Mormon scum."

Okay, as a rabid anti-prop 8 voter, I have to ask here--what's the point of this? Calling those who disagree with you names and protesting in their front lawns are going to do NOTHING to help change their minds and your cause. You're simply adding fuel to their fire and creating more separation between you and the other side.

If it were the other way around and had prop 8 failed to pass, and then the Mormons were congregating in the streets in the gay areas, calling them sinners and saying that they'll go to hell, that would be completely self defeating of their cause as well.

Can someone explain this?


1st: They are spreading the truth and it hurts and the CLDS are getting what it deserves.
2nd: If Prop 8 failed and they did what you did they would be preaching intolerance not spreading the trurth.
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |