Friday, November 20, 2009 in Lewiston, Maine

Auburn-Lewiston:
Clear sky, 48.2 °F

Defeat in Maine a harsh blow to gay-marriage drive

The stars seemed aligned for supporters of gay marriage. They had Maine's governor, legislative leaders and major newspapers on their side, plus a huge edge in campaign funding. So losing a landmark referendum was a devastating blow, for activists in Maine and nationwide.

In an election that had been billed for weeks as too close to call, Maine's often unpredictable voters repealed a state law Tuesday that would have allowed same-sex couples to wed. Gay marriage has now lost in all 31 states in which it has been put to a popular vote - a trend that the gay-rights movement had believed it could end in Maine.

"Today's heartbreaking defeat unfortunately shows that lies and fear can still win at the ballot box," said Rea Carey, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.

With 87 percent of the precincts reporting, gay-marriage foes had 53 percent of the vote. They prevailed in many of Maine's far-flung small towns and lost by a less-than-expected margin in the state's biggest city, Portland.

"The institution of marriage has been preserved in Maine and across the nation," declared Frank Schubert, chief organizer for the winning side.

Attention will now turn to other states, including California - where Schubert was an instrumental strategist a year ago in the successful campaign to overturn cost-ordered same-sex marriage.

Gay-rights activists have been planning to go back to the ballot in California, either in 2010 or 2012, in another attempt to legalize gay marriage. But the Maine result was not the victory they had been hoping for to fire up their troops.

Brian Brown of the National Organization for Marriage, a conservative group that steered substantial funds to fight gay marriage in both California and Maine, was elated by Tuesday's result, saying it shows that "that even in a New England state, if the voters have a chance to have their say, they're going to protect and defend the commonsense definition of marriage."

At issue in the referendum was a law passed by Maine's Legislature last spring that would have allowed gays to wed. The law was put on hold after conservatives launched a petition drive to repeal it.

Five other states have legalized gay marriage - starting with Massachusetts in 2004, and followed by Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut and Iowa - but all did so through legislation or court rulings, not by popular vote. In contrast, constitutional amendments banning gay marriage have been approved in all 30 states where they have been on the ballot.

Brown said "out-of-touch legislators" are a principal reason same-sex marriage has taken hold in New England.

"What we're saying is give us a chance to take our message to the people and let the people decide," he said. He also suggested that the outcome in Maine will give pause to lawmakers in New York and New Jersey, where gay-marriage legislation is pending.

Richard Socarides, who was an adviser on gay-rights issues in the Clinton administration, said the loss in Maine should prompt gay-rights leaders to reconsider their state-by-state strategy on marriage and shift instead to lobbying for changes on the federal level that expand recognition of same-sex couples.

In Maine, gay-marriage supporters conceded early Wednesday.

"We're in this for the long haul," said Jesse Connolly, manager of the pro-gay marriage campaign. "For next week, and next month, and next year - until all Maine families are treated equally. Because in the end, this has always been about love and family and that will always be something worth fighting for.

A similar note was sounded by Democratic Gov. John Baldacci, who signed the bill into law last May and spoke out in defense of the law.

"If we don't get to the top of the mountain tonight, we've made a significant stride. And we're going to get there," he said late Tuesday. "We will get to the top of the mountain."

Both sides in Maine drew volunteers and contributions from out of state, but the money edge went to the campaign in defense of gay marriage, Protect Maine Equality. It raised $4 million, compared with $2.5 million for Stand for Marriage Maine.

Stand for Marriage based many of its campaign ads on claims - disputed by state officials - that the new law would mean "homosexual marriage" would be taught in public schools. That was the same theme used to persuade Californians to reject gay marriage.

Elsewhere on Tuesday, voters in Washington state voted on whether to uphold or overturn a recently expanded domestic partnership law that entitles same-sex couples to the same state-granted rights as heterosexual married couples. With half the precincts reporting, that race was too close to call.

In Kalamazoo, Mich., voters approved a measure that bars discrimination based on sexual orientation.


Comments

Brucesrq says

I wonder where you people were educated, so filled with bible misquotes, and I cannot believe you are taking a crack at quoting God for the love of mike about homosexuality. Where in heck do you think gay people come from? Straight parents you misinformed creations. If you believe in God, then you must believe God does not make mistakes, with the exception that he misplaced a piece of your brain that has compassion and is not judgmental, another thing Christ told you not to do either.
Bunch of hypocrites.

Posted 2 weeks ago (permalink)

StoshDosh's picture

StoshDosh says

. . Thanks Bruce. We are all made in God's image. That does not make us little Gods though :)

Posted 2 weeks ago (permalink)

Gil's picture

Gil says

Flowerman says "those who loathe gay and lesbian people" When are you libs going to get it that it has nothing to do with hate or bigotry? Probably never, which is why you lost. This misguided fool would have you believe that you voted yes becasue you hate gay people, not because you wanted to make your voice heard. He also said "The Yes On One campaign was almost entirely about convincing people that letting gay people marry would lead to teaching gay sex in schools, which is preposterous and outrageous on its face." Sorry Flower dude, the facts aren't on your side. The TV ads worked because they were true:
http://www.massresistance.org/docs/a8a/general/NPR_091304.htm
http://www.massresistance.org/docs/parker/diversity_book.html
http://www.massresistance.org/docs/parker/main.html
http://www.massresistance.org/docs/issues/king_and_king/book.html
http://www.massresistance.org/docs/parker_lawsuit/motion_to_dismiss_2007...
http://www.massresistance.org/docs/articles/franklin_trans_1106.html
http://www.massresistance.org/docs/events07/youthpride07/common.html
http://www.massresistance.org/docs/issues/black_book/black_book_inside.h...
The truth can be a bitter pill, eh flower dude?
"Reasoning with a liberal is like trying to pick up a turd by the clean end. " Pirate

Posted 2 weeks ago (permalink)

StoshDosh's picture

StoshDosh says

. There are many truths . Here's one . ≠ 7 % of the world is gay , lesbian , bisexual or transexual :) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage

Posted 2 weeks ago (permalink)

StoshDosh's picture

StoshDosh says

. There are many truths . Here's one . ≠ 7 % of the world is gay , lesbian , bisexual or transexual :) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage

Posted 2 weeks ago (permalink)

2sides says

Lebearun; I watched the video and your right except the church cannot rule the government despite how vast they are. They were kicked out a long time ago. If you want, I'll try to make a video of a non religious wedding that's been in practice for thousands of years and was accepted by everyone. It'll show a man clubbing a woman and dragging her home to reproduce. But it'll be in a modern setting of course.

Posted 2 weeks ago (permalink)

iangol's picture

iangol says

I watched it too... never had such a good laugh.. wanna buy some stones? LOL

Posted 2 weeks ago (permalink)

2sides says

This is to GaryC. I see your comparing yourself to animals that can reproduce asexually. Can you produce asexually? No? Then don't compare yourself to them.

Posted 2 weeks ago (permalink)

lebearun's picture

lebearun says

Check out this video for "traditional" marriage: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntC0PNHFRgU

Posted 2 weeks ago (permalink)

northwoods says

Lebearun
I did watch the video and you have shown me the light I would like to thank you for post that link. I have changed my opinion and I think the law needs to be changed. Once again thank you and sodomy should be illegal again.

Posted 2 weeks ago (permalink)

Gil's picture

Gil says

Once again the people have spoken. Twice the gay special rights bill was defeated by the citizenry and the gay agenda had to be passed through the legislature above the reach of the people. Again we were bypassed by the legislature in order to pas a gay marriage bill that they knew would never have been passed in a referendum, because the libs know that given the choice, most people will not vote to give gays special rights, or allow them to redefine marriage. This time it didn't work. As has been the case in over 30 states now, when put to a vote, the people will overwhelmingly deny special rights to homosexuals. It is not a civil rights issue, and the comparison just draws more rancor from the citizenry, especially blacks. It is not a hate issue, nor a bigot issue. It is a populace proclaiming that given it's failures, the institution of marriage still means something. It is a vote to bring the legislature's overbearing, pretentious, better than thou attitude to a screeching halt.
"Reasoning with a liberal is like trying to pick up a turd by the clean end. " Pirate

Posted 2 weeks ago (permalink)

Flowerman says

Gil, You seem to forget that after two victories, those who loathe gay and lesbian people were beaten soundly at the polls in 2006 by a 10 point margin. You know, I wouldn't mind losing this election if it were a matter of conscience by the electorate. It was not, however. The Yes On One campaign was almost entirely about convincing people that letting gay people marry would lead to teaching gay sex in schools, which is preposterous and outrageous on its face. But enough people believed it so that you got by. This time, anyway. This was a campaign of lies, and the Catholic Church, in leading this campaign, has won a victory, to be sure. What it has given up, though, is its moral authority. You cannot lead by lies and keep your moral authority. It has also lost a generation of young people who might have found the church relevant, but who look in disgust at what the church is doing to gay and lesbian people in the name of morality. We will be back, Gil, and the next time, we will figure out how to keep people from believing the ridiculous lies of the church. Remember, you slowed down the process of getting legal protection against discrimination for gay and lesbian people, but in the end, we won. It may take two years, it may take four years, but you are on the losing side of history, and we will win this one, too. .

Posted 2 weeks ago (permalink)

Robert61 says

Flowerman, its almost as bad as the pro gay side quoting all the "RIGHTS" that gay couples do not have...I frankly got tired of that argument when they called them rights instead of BENEFITS. The people have spoken on the issue, despite the outside political influences on both sides.

Posted 2 weeks ago (permalink)

northwoods says

if I do recall in 2006 the the stand for marriage group was saying that law would lead to gay marriage and the gay activist said that was just a scare tatic and that vote was not about gay marriage. I not saying gay marriage would have been taught in school BUT you should stop and look at who is/was lying

Posted 2 weeks ago (permalink)

news4u says

"Reasoning with a liberal is like trying to pick up a turd by the clean end. "
But keep trying....to pick up the turd that is!

Posted 2 weeks ago (permalink)

2sides says

tsk tsk tsk: such discrimination from both sides! I'm a native Mainer and to be labeled a bigot because I'm a catholic is discriminatory in itself by such open minded people. You take stabs at catholics who get divorces that they are not following their religion. I can name several couples who divorce after their spouse's comes out of the closet to pronounce that they are gay. If your so strong in your beliefs and if this is the way you were when you were born; why did you marry some one from the opposite sex to begin with? And why wait so many years to get there? You can call yourself open minded and nondiscriminatory when you can look at your fellow man and not judge him/her based on anything what-so-ever. Not on religion/sex/color/ideas/beliefs/gender. Yes the catholics supported the yes vote, but they aren't the only religion that's against it. So stop the name calling.

Posted 2 weeks ago (permalink)

Auburn Patriot says

I would simply like to thank the Church community for injecting religion into what was originally a non-religious issue!!!

Thanks to the local Catholic and Protestant churches for sanctioning bigotry!!

Thanks for twisting the Bible for your malevolent political purposes!

Thanks for showing people who were/are unsure about their Christian calling to affirm their skepticism and confusion.

Thanks for making the rest of us Christians look like redneck bigots, even as we try to love our fellow humans equally, as Jesus taught us.

Thanks, a lot........for nothing.

This will only serve to further isolate and separate the Church from the community. I hope it doesn't...............

Posted 2 weeks ago (permalink)

BLS says

Patriot my man, let's see some Scriptures where Jesus taught that it was OK to transgress the Law e.g. Leviticus 18:22, and also in the New Testament: I Corinthians 6:9.

Don't know what Bible you people read from, but you had burn it, otherwise things could get a bit hot for you, if you know what I mean ;)

Posted 2 weeks ago (permalink)

Auburn Patriot says

Hmmm....so let me get this figured out. You're saying that because Jesus never said anything about "disobeying" other parts of the Scripture, then we are to infer that He condones these verses absolutely? So we are to take into account, and thus pass judgement thereof, because of what He DIDN'T say??

Well, BLS, you must like to kill puppies. I can infer this from your discussion because you didn't say anything about not killing puppies!!

DUH.

Doesn't make any sense, does it? Mmmm, nope!

BTW, you imply that I'm somehow destined for Hell because of my beliefs? Let me be the first to inform you that Hell is not "hot", and Heaven isn't an airy place in the clouds. Let's all TRY to act like adults and think a tad more rationally, mmm-kay?

Posted 2 weeks ago (permalink)

news4u says

OUCH! Stop thumping that Bible. I'm getting a headache!

Posted 2 weeks ago (permalink)

BLS says

Are we II Petering 3:3ing?

Well, at least you're not the only one 'round here! :)

Posted 2 weeks ago (permalink)

news4u says

"Call us bigots, hydrophobics, or anything that you wish"

Hydrophobic refers to the tendency of a substance to repel water or to be incapable of completely dissolving in water.

Never would have thought to call you hydrophobic.....but whatever floats your boat (pun intended)

Posted 2 weeks ago (permalink)

Flowerman says

It is so disappointing to hear people who have privileges, like the privilege of being protected against discrimination, complain that those lacking those protecting them are requesting "special" privileges, that is to say, privileges no different than what they have. It took a while for the electorate to cut through the "special rights" crap, but they did, and whomped your butts in 2006. Similarly, the privilege that all us heterosexuals have to marry is no less special than the privilege sought by gay and lesbian people. And the electorate will see that sooner or later. Get used to it, bud. We are not going away. And you will lose. Again.

Posted 2 weeks ago (permalink)

iangol's picture

iangol says

well your president Obama just signed in to law a few days ago more special rights for homosexuals... do you really want to go there?

It's really too bad that the NO on 1 people can not accept that MAINE VOTERS said yesterday they do NOT want homosexual marriage in their state. It would be more simple if they would just agree to civil unions with the same rights..

Posted 2 weeks ago (permalink)

queenhoneeybee's picture

queenhoneeybee says

Civil unions do NOT have the same rights...

Posted 2 weeks ago (permalink)

UnspokenVoice says

You are a liar. Name ONE thing that civil unions do not confer that is conferred to married folks? Hint: Tab A - Slot A... You're built to have sex with the opposing gender. If you're mentally ill enough to NOT understand that then you are not fit to vote in the first place and certainly not mentally fit enough to sign a contract which is, essentially, what a marriage is. Me? I say civil unions for all - even the mentally deficient. Then the whiners can stop bleating about how they are equal but not able to have every privilege. Privileges are earned, rights are not. Marriage is not a right without limitations. CFI: Disallowing relatives to wed, disallowing human/beast marriages, disallowing polygamous unions, etc... It is *not* a right without limitations. It is a privilege that is earned. Mentally ill people aren't privy to such nor should they be.

Posted 2 weeks ago (permalink)

tron's picture

tron says

David, have you been under a rock for the last few months? The list of rights that are NOT confered by civil unions is longer than your arm.

Posted 1 week ago (permalink)

mainexile says

It appears that most of the "No" commenters fail to recognize that the majority of "Yes" voters don't care if gays want a committed, loving, LEGAL relationship. Most would support it. What the Yes folks object to is calling it "marriage". They (Yes) would support an expanded civil union/domestic partnership law that provides all of the rights and benefits of hetero marriage. They (Yes) also feel that what the gays really want is acceptance of their lifestyle - something that will be impossible to attain. So, why not learn from this divisive vote and push your elected representatives in Augusta to pass legislation that provides those rights and benefits under a civil union/domestic partnership program. You'll probably find that there will be much less resistance from all of the Yes folks. Please leave "marriage" alone.

Posted 2 weeks ago (permalink)

Flowerman says

The primary reason we fail to recognize it is because until gay marriage was put on the table, the Yes folks fought tooth and nail against every tiny scrid of equality for gay and lesbian people. There will come a time when the yes folks have clearer vision, and come to understand that gay people getting married has not one thing to do with them.

Posted 2 weeks ago (permalink)

iangol's picture

iangol says

clearer vision of what? Yes on 1 knows what the vision and reality is.. Marriage = 1 man & 1 woman

Posted 2 weeks ago (permalink)

Auburn Patriot says

Marriage = 1 man & 1 woman? Umm, gee......well how about 2 men and a woman? Or 3 men, and 3 women? Or, maybe, let's go marry 2 men, 3 women, and a chimpanzee and see what happens???

If I have to read/hear one more cross-eyed, knuckle-dragging mouth-breather "inform" me that marriage is ONLY 1 man and 1 woman, I swear I may just have to grab some spray-paint and commit some civil disobedience.........short of unnecessary violence, I'm not sure how one can get through to these people......

Seriously, though, you claim to have a "clear vision" for your argument? Based on what? What your church told you?

Listen, I'm a very spiritual person, and a Christian to boot. But sometimes I think we need to institute an intelligence exam before allowing people to go to church. This way, there's less of a chance that we will have to suffer this ignorance in the future. It's exhausting having to re-teach people the lessons from the Bible!

Posted 2 weeks ago (permalink)

northwoods says

i agree what needs to be done is a compromise so that all parties( except that fanatics on both sides wont be happy). But judging from what I have heard from people I have talked to that voted no on 1 its all or nothing. I am not saying every no on1 is like that just the ones that I have spoking to

Posted 2 weeks ago (permalink)

concerned KD says

heres 1 big reason for some that yes on 1 tok home the votes.... Why was this necessary for inclusion in the draft of the original LAW signed on may 6 2009.. Why do they need to redefine these words in order to give gays equal marriage rights? Cut and pasted from a COPY OF THE LAW AS IT WAS WRITTEN...

§ 650-A. Codification of marriage

Marriage is the legally recognized union of 2 people. Gender-specific terms relating to the marital
relationship or familial relationships, including, but not limited to, "spouse," "family," "marriage,"
"immediate family," "dependent," "next of kin," "bride," "groom," "husband," "wife," "widow" and
"widower," must be construed to be gender-neutral for all purposes throughout the law, whether in the
context of statute, administrative or court rule, policy, common law or any other source of civil law.

Posted 2 weeks ago (permalink)

stangi says

Does anyone actually care about where his or her soul will end up after we die? Why does the desire for sex, whether legitimate or not, have to rule our lives? Let's focus on pleasing God, because by doing that, we focus on eternity. If we could carry every burden of this earth on our shoulders at once, the suffering involved would be nothing compared to the infinite and unending happiness of heaven, and it would be nothing compared to the infinite and unending suffering of hell. The choices we make in this life determine which of two places where we will spend eternity. A 75-year life, even if "unfair" and full of suffering, is not even a drop in the ocean compared to eternity. Jesus Christ became the means of salvation to all who obey him (Heb. 5:8-9). It's not hard to follow his teachings, which are preserved and upheld for us by the Catholic Church. Let the grace of Jesus work in us, and we can endure any real or perceived suffering. Eternity awaits us, one way or another.

Posted 2 weeks ago (permalink)

chitdabed says

The Catholic Church?? Great institution. For years it covered up the facts about their child molesters then tried to buy their victims' silence. I looked everywhere in the New Testament but found nothing in the teachings of Jesus allowing such horrible acts against children. It's amazing that religious fanatics like yourself and the folks from out of state always try to shove their doctrines down other peoples throats. You are no different than the taliban. Why doesn't everyone see through your fanaticism and follow both the constitution and the real teachings of jesus. Separate church from the state and love thy neighbor as thyself.

Posted 2 weeks ago (permalink)

Auburn Patriot says

Good thing, Stangi. 'Cause Jesus NEVER said anything about homosexuality!!!! EVER!!!! So, yeah, let's please God by doing His bidding, which was to love one another equally without judgment. If some think homosexuality is "against God" then may I suggest those people be sure to read the whole Bible, and not cherry-pick certain phrases to condone their bigotry and intolerance? After-all, what do you think Jesus would say to those who condemn others for religious reasons? You think Jesus would look favorably on the Catholics for this? Hardly.

Posted 2 weeks ago (permalink)

iangol's picture

iangol says

http://www.bible.ca/s-homo=sin.htm

The Bible's condemnation of homosexuality is as clear and plain as the Bible's condemnation of murder, adultery, premarital sex, kidnapping, lying and idolatry. Further, for me to openly condemn homosexuality theologically makes me no more a "gay basher" than I am an "adultery basher", "premarital sex basher", "kidnapper basher" or a "murderer basher". If you disagree, your argument is with God's Bible.

Posted 2 weeks ago (permalink)

Auburn Patriot says

Certainly, my argument IS with the Bible! As much as I respect the spirituality of God, I find many faults with the Bible. Let's remember, the Bible was written by MAN, it did not magically appear in everyone's nightstand overnight! Furthermore, the Bible was written by many different people, over the course of many centuries, and has been translated into many different languages before it ever came into english. So, YES, I believe my argument IS with the Bible, because I find it hard to believe that it is an absolute, and that it has not been tainted with misinterpretation, mistranslation, or worse, malevolent manipulation.

And BTW, you state "The Bible's condemnation of homosexuality is as clear and plain as the Bible's condemnation of murder, adultery, premarital sex, kidnapping, lying and idolatry." Well, most of those issues are stated within the Commandments, which can be widely accepted as an absolute! No problems there! But the verses that most people quote when "bashing" gays are not nearly as concrete, and have most likely have (and continue to be, apparently) taken out of context for the purposes of politics. The exact same arguments were given by quoting the Bible when certain people had opposition to inter-racial marriage. Doesn't quoting the Bible in opposition to inter-racial marriage seem silly to us now? Of course it does. Given enough time, someday our society may find the argument against gay marriage equally as preposterous.

Besides, the whole point of my last statement is that the entire Bible is punctuated by examples of God's/Jesus' teachings of love and tolerance. It is not mean't to be used as a weapon against certain people for the sake of politics. To condemn gays as "abominations" and other such nonsense is to refute the entire Bible for the sake of a specific, narrow point-of-view.

And, if you insist upon taking the Bible at absolute face-value, then we need to remember that divorce is considered "against God" as well, so I guess 60% of us aren't getting into Heaven at any rate. Also, (yes, there's more), women who commit adultery are supposed to be stoned to death, and if a man dies childless, his widow is supposed to reproduce with each of his surviving brothers until one of them helps her bear a male heir. Hmmm...............I wonder why the Catholics don't jump on THAT one........

I love God, I love my fellow humans....I just simply don't see why others have to dictate how some people live.

Posted 2 weeks ago (permalink)

iangol's picture

iangol says

The link and paragraph I posted is from the link that I posted so people would go read it.

Those are not my words, thank you

Posted 2 weeks ago (permalink)

Auburn Patriot says

Your words or not, my friend, you posted them. You're responsible for them. So have a little integrity and support your statements.

If you can't debate with the big boys, then don't speak up. I don't have much patience for people who try to circumvent the argument by claiming "it wasn't MY idea!".

Posted 2 weeks ago (permalink)

iangol's picture

iangol says

Time for you to accept Marriage is 1 man and 1 woman period. '

You also need to know,, I did not have anything to do with writing the bible..

Posted 2 weeks ago (permalink)

news4u says

"You also need to know,, I did not have anything to do with writing the bible.. "
Thank God!!

Posted 2 weeks ago (permalink)

iangol's picture

iangol says

I thank God each and every day for everyone in my life.. he is wonderful! You should give him a try.. it might make you a better human being

Posted 2 weeks ago (permalink)

news4u says

You obviously didn't understand the irony in my previous post. But, you are quick to judge........

Posted 2 weeks ago (permalink)

queenhoneeybee's picture

queenhoneeybee says

I agree on this statement!

Posted 2 weeks ago (permalink)

PistonJay says

You ust continue to prove my point someone will see that being OK and laws like this will provide the basis!

Posted 2 weeks ago (permalink)

iangol's picture

iangol says

Was the photo of Partners Lisa Brackbill, left, and Lisa Pugh, right, both from Buckfield, Maine suppose to make the YES on 1 supporters feel bad?

Congratulations Frank Schubert and the YES on 1, again I commend you on a well done job.

Posted 2 weeks ago (permalink)

Auburn Patriot says

Here we go again, Iangol. I propose that the photo SHOULD make people feel bad. After all, try stepping in their shoes and feel how they must feel. How would you feel if you just found out that your hopes of normalcy and recognition have been cast aside by those who simply cannot tolerate your lifestyle? Do you not have ANY sympathy for gay people?

And yes, congrats to Frank Schubert on a job well done. When I need someone to drum up a fearmongering campaign, I'll know who to call! (He wouldn't, perchance, be a neoconservative?)

Posted 2 weeks ago (permalink)

news4u says

"... anyone else wanting special rights for their sleeping habits.."
Once again you fail to look at the individual as a whole, but instead want to focus on their sexual activity. So typical.

The remainder of your post sounds very bitter. This occurred over 40 years ago and yet you continue to hold onto this resentment today. Because you were denied the privilege to marry the person of your choice you feel others should be made to suffer the same consequences today?? Sounds like sour grapes to me.

Posted 2 weeks ago (permalink)

iangol's picture

iangol says

Well it sounds like to me that the No on 1 people are acting like a bunch of two year olds that are having temper tantrums....

Posted 2 weeks ago (permalink)

Contests
Radio City Racing
NASCAR fantasy racing at its finest. Weekly prizes. Grand prize is a flat screen TV. Click here to play!
Copyright 2009 Sun Media Group