Log Cabin Republicans hit McCain for backing California marriage amendment
posted at 2:27 pm on July 1, 2008 by Allahpundit
Electoral reality being what it is, he had little choice. The inevitable rebuke:
LCR president Patrick Sammon asserted in the statement that supporting the amendment is inconsistent with McCain’s belief in federalism. “Unfortunately, his position on this amendment hurts gay and lesbian families. We obviously disagree with Senator McCain on this issue and do not believe he should have interjected himself into this state issue,” Sammon said in the release. “Backing California’s ban sends the wrong signal to the independents who will decide this election because it creates the impression that he’s pandering to social conservative leaders.” McCain held a closed meeting in Ohio late last week with social conservative leaders, around the time the new statement appeared on ProtectMarriage.com.
Sammon, who has met several times with McCain’s campaign staff and once with the senator himself, declined to discuss the nature of those meetings or whether the senator had indicated what his official stance on California’s ballot measure would be.
The federalism critique is the same one that Ed leveled at Obama for his flip-flop on gay marriage this morning. I don’t really get it: If all they’re doing is saying how they’d vote if they had the chance, it’s no great betrayal of the principle in my mind. You’re allowed to have an opinion as a federalist; you’re not allowed to endorse a federal jurisdictional power grab to take the issue out of the state’s hands. Neither McCain nor Obama are guilty of the latter unless I missed something, although as Ed noted, His Holiness is certainly guilty of a dramatic reversal on the substance of the debate — much more so (the federalism issue aside) than Maverick is. Remember?
Update: Evangelicals wrestle with a shocking possibility: Could Obama be pro-gay?
Obama has passed the first hurdle by engaging people of faith and being willing to discuss his faith openly. He has passed with flyers colors. But now comes the hard part. It’s called scrutiny. His political opponents believe that once Evangelicals really get a handle on what Obama is all about policy wise, then they’ll be turned off and they won’t buy in to the lofty rhetoric.
Handing out pro-gay rights flyers while at the same time talking about your “Christian faith” is a MAJOR disconnect for not only conservative Evangelicals but for some of those Independent voting, moderate leaning working class folks in the rust belt. It doesn’t play well
Update: A commenter thinks Obama might in fact be pushing a jurisdictional power grab per what he said about “fully equal rights and benefits to same-sex couples under both state and federal law.” I’d have to see details of the proposal, but the “federal law” part may mean merely federal jobs.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Great by-line Allah.
omnipotent on July 1, 2008 at 2:31 PM
Wait, how is it a violation of federalism? McCain wants the people of the states to vote on gay marriage, not the courts. And of course, he personally is against gay marriage. What’s wrong with that position?
doodleduh on July 1, 2008 at 2:32 PM
Huh? Oxymoron.
faraway on July 1, 2008 at 2:34 PM
Why do homosexual Republicans think they are so special as to warrant any special treatment or consideration?
I am really tired of a group of people who make up a very small percentage of the population running roughshod over everybody else.
Message to these goups – “Shut up and sing (or do whatever it is you do).”
EJDolbow on July 1, 2008 at 2:35 PM
I don’t think either of them is really inconsistent on this.
DaveS on July 1, 2008 at 2:36 PM
No comment.
————-
About the federalism argument. I agree that a federal amendment defining marriage is not being very federalist, but how about an amendment releasing states from recognizing gay marriages from other states, under FFC?
And how about doing what the feds did to get every state but LA to raise the drinking age to 21: bribe/blackmail them. We’ll provide millions of dollars for, oh, say, marriage counseling to every state that amends their Constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman.
misterpeasea on July 1, 2008 at 2:37 PM
When did he do that?
JiangxiDad on July 1, 2008 at 2:39 PM
Sometimes it is best to keep quiet.
maverick muse on July 1, 2008 at 2:39 PM
My favorite euphemism is “gay.” I love the avoidance mentality.
From now on, I’m not OhEssYouCowboys. I’m SouthOfKansasAndNorthOfTexasEssYouCowboys.
OhEssYouCowboys on July 1, 2008 at 2:41 PM
I’m not seeing how a state constitutional amendment is inconsistent with federalism. Or how anybody supporting or opposing it is inconsistent with federalism.
flenser on July 1, 2008 at 2:41 PM
Sounds like Obama would grant equal rights through a federal power grab to me.
BacaDog on July 1, 2008 at 2:41 PM
Isn’t this whole gay marriage issue exhibit 1 in “How to lose an election without even trying” for the Republican party? I understand this issue is important for the base (for the most part), but isn’t the heavily playing to the base sort of a moot point at this juncture? I think dedicated conservatives are going to not send money to Maverick for a myriad of issues, but are we seriously going to sit back and watch Obama take the White House? I think that is about as likely as Hillary’s supporters pulling the lever for McCain in large numbers. Why don’t we steer the party away from this holier-than-thou divisiveness and move it toward accomplishing the goals we all agree on? We saw with the Miers debacle that grassroots unity accomplishes good results (i.e., Heller vs. DC). If we truly want to win this election, we need to unite as a base, leave divisiveness for after the election, and learn to reach out to the independents. Embracing a policy that undermines Federalist principles does nothing to accomplish any of those said goals.
LarryinVA on July 1, 2008 at 2:44 PM
And the sodomy lobby in CA has sued to strike the male/female-only marriage proposition from the ballot on a technicality, even though it has nearly twice the required signatures. They are saying that it would drastically upset the social fabric of California , unlike the CA supreme court’s ruling making gay marriage the law of the land. Hussein is down with that because, you know, he’s a devout Christians, and people haven’t been reading their Bibles. It’s part of his outreach to evangellyfish.
Akzed on July 1, 2008 at 2:47 PM
OT, but what on earth is OhEssYouCowboys supposed to mean, anyway (since you brought it up)?
Akzed on July 1, 2008 at 2:49 PM
Not sure that quite captures it. More like KumquatEssYouCowboys.
misterpeasea on July 1, 2008 at 2:50 PM
Not at all.
Big S on July 1, 2008 at 2:50 PM
Heh. The Big 12 isn’t very well known.
misterpeasea on July 1, 2008 at 2:51 PM
I guess that “closed door” (there’s GOTTA be a pun in there somewhere) meeting McCain had with these, er, fellas, the other day worked huh?
catmman on July 1, 2008 at 2:52 PM
Yeah at all. Unless they’re adopting LGBT kids?
misterpeasea on July 1, 2008 at 2:54 PM
There are 190+ comments on gay marriage at the earlier post today about Obama’s flip-flop. If you want to know how this discussion will play out, just go there.
Sorry, AP and ED.
BigD on July 1, 2008 at 2:54 PM
The issue of “gay marriage” goes so much further. Anyone that thinks it’s just about 2 people “who love each other”, is delusional. It struck me yesterday listening to replays of Michelle Obama speaking to a GLBT gathering. What exactly does the B stand for? Bi. Bi-sexual. Don’t you need 3 people to form a bi-sexual relationship?
But that’s not all, of course the real reason is their need to quash all aspects of our Judeo-Christian culture.
From Chuck Colson’s Breakpoint:
kirkill on July 1, 2008 at 2:54 PM
You see, Larry, some who are refusing to vote for McCain are withholding their vote on “principle”. Believing all the while that the Democrats will so enrage the populace that they’ll sweep the GOP back to the White House and a majority in both houses at the earliest possible moment.
Although I am a lifelong Conservative, I’m personally disgusted with both parties at the moment and really don’t trust either one to do what is best for the country.
All that being said, I’m now just looking out for myself. As such, McCain could stand on the steps of the Capital in a pink Tutu reading from the Communist Manifesto and I’d vote for him if he promises nothing more than not to raise my damn taxes.
BacaDog on July 1, 2008 at 2:55 PM
Sorry BigD, I didn’t catch that one, was working, you know.
kirkill on July 1, 2008 at 2:56 PM
I guess these don’t count as “families”:
Big S on July 1, 2008 at 2:58 PM
OSU – Cowboys, for those that must be Dallas Cowboy fans.
kirkill on July 1, 2008 at 2:58 PM
OhEssYou = oSu = Oklahoma State University. Or, if you’re misterpeasea, Kumquat State University.
OhEssYouCowboys on July 1, 2008 at 2:59 PM
What are “flyers colors”?
Is that something new for the Air Force???
MarkTheGreat on July 1, 2008 at 3:03 PM
While I support what the Log Cabin Republicans are doing, there are more important issues in this upcoming election than gay marriage. I almost believe that the gay marriage issue is to our political discussion what stalking is to having a crush. We could talk about gay marriage a little less.
thuja on July 1, 2008 at 3:03 PM
As far as the Constitution goes, the issue (or any similar one) is an issue of federalism. The issue extends beyond federalism only when questions are raised as to full faith and credit between states with and without gay marriage. If it gets to the point of an amendment, then either the states or Congress have the power to initiate it. The fascinating thing is that the President has no Constitutional power to legally affect the status of gay marriage whatsoever. His position is merely personal.
MB007 on July 1, 2008 at 3:04 PM
Could it be OSU? Oklahoma State University? (Ohio State’s the Buckeyes.)
MarkTheGreat on July 1, 2008 at 3:05 PM
I’m not a fan of McCain, but I know as the election gets closer, I’m not going to sit back and watch Obama win for the same reason as you. I just hope McCain doesn’t utter the phrase, “Read my lips, no new taxes.”
LarryinVA on July 1, 2008 at 3:07 PM
Bi-sexual just means that you are attracted to both sexes instead of the just the opposite sex (heterosexual) or the the same sex (homosexual).
It’s not a requirement that you do it with both sexes at the same time.
MarkTheGreat on July 1, 2008 at 3:08 PM
I mentioned this before. Unless I’m mistaken, Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage bill making it unnecessary for any state to recognize gay marriage performed in another state.
That is an example of the president affecting the status of gay marriage.
A gay couple married today in California is not considered married in your state (assuming it’s not CA or MA or NY).
JiangxiDad on July 1, 2008 at 3:09 PM
All those LCR folks will have to decide whether they’re more Log Cabin or more Republican. It probably doesn’t matter much, because gays only make up a few percent of the population, and most of them vote Democrat anyway.
McCain’s coming out in favor of the gay-marriage ban in California is politically smart. This is a classic case of judicial overreach, and probably most Californians will turn out en masse to ban gay marriage. If Obama takes a clear stand on the other side (although Obama rarely takes a clear stand), he could lose moderate and Hispanic votes in California, which could put the state in play. McCain has little chance of winning California anyway, but using the gay-marriage issue to back Obama into a corner could hurt Obama elsewhere, and bring out the Evangelical vote for McCain.
This also plays into the Supreme Court issue, especially considering that constitutional law currently depends on the whims of Anthony Kennedy. McCain could stress that he could replace a retiring liberal justice with a “strict constructionist”, giving the Court a conservative majority, and use his influence with the Gang of 14 to shepherd his nominees through a Democrat-controlled Senate.
Steve Z on July 1, 2008 at 3:11 PM
Dang, OhEssYou, you aren’t getting much respect. Don’t worry about it, ya’ll have a cute little conference.
misterpeasea on July 1, 2008 at 3:11 PM
Log Cabin Republicans bring to mind 3 things:
1) The lie that Abraham Lincoln was in any way homosexual. When he travelled with his law partner, they often had to share a bed when they lodged, which was standard at that time. They didn’t have Holiday Inns then
2) The phallic imagery engendered by the term Log
3) How it seems gays need the validation and acceptance of others to be complete. If your identity can only be sustained by the approval of others, then, it seems to me, you have a problem of your own making.
4)OK going to gratuituously throw in this pic of Wes Clark
Paul-Cincy on July 1, 2008 at 3:13 PM
And bisexuality is also a matter of genetics, and not choice, I’m guessing. Along with tranvestitism.
misterpeasea on July 1, 2008 at 3:14 PM
OK, I’ll bite. If you hadn’t dissed the Big 12, I’d accuse you of being a TU Shorthorn or a an OU Squat.
So, spill.
OhEssYouCowboys on July 1, 2008 at 3:16 PM
delete “a,” before “an,” supra.
OhEssYouCowboys on July 1, 2008 at 3:16 PM
JiangxiDad on July 1, 2008 at 3:09 PM
My mistake. I forgot to add a word: The fascinating thing is that the President has no Constitutional power to legally affect the amendment status of gay marriage whatsoever. His position is merely personal.
The DOMA (introduced by Bob Barr, ironically enough) is one example of a President being able to weigh in on gay marriage. The “nuclear option” of course would be an executive order, but then that throws it into the Supreme Court’s cage.
MB007 on July 1, 2008 at 3:19 PM
Any time conservatives try to put in place “separate but equal” institutions, they’re asking for a Court ruling against it.
Big S on July 1, 2008 at 3:19 PM
Only the BEST CONFERENCE IN THE ENTIRE KNOWN UNIVERSE! SEC baby. Grew up and went to undergraduate at Auburn.
And if it makes you feel any better, I went to Texas, but have no love (or even like) for ‘em. Also, did you see where Jamelle Holieway ended up in the pokey the other day? Not cocaine this time, just unpaid tickets.
misterpeasea on July 1, 2008 at 3:26 PM
“Log Cabin Republicans hit McCain for backing California marriage amendment”
I’m fine with people being gay, but I don’t think they should be allowed to hit old men.
Kevin M on July 1, 2008 at 3:27 PM
I don’t understand why a challenge to the DOMA hasn’t come before the courts. I always assumed it was kind of a red herring, and that it was the plan all along to ease gay marriage in the door through a few liberal states, and then have the court strike down the act, forcing all states to recognize it. Maybe that’s what’s coming next.
JiangxiDad on July 1, 2008 at 3:28 PM
bingo!
right4life on July 1, 2008 at 3:35 PM
but its OK when libs do it..
some pigs are more equal than others…..
right4life on July 1, 2008 at 3:36 PM
Oh. OSU. Thanks. I thought it mighta been a Dallas thing.
Akzed on July 1, 2008 at 3:38 PM
JiangxiDad on July 1, 2008 at 3:28 PM
Well, that’s very possible. I think the DOMA was first passed in response to the then-radical act by Hawaii to legalize gay marriage. In the decade since, we have seen two more states try this move, with NY being the only state without gay marriage where it is recognized by other states. Of course, by “the Court”, you mean “Anthony Kennedy’s personal whims,” which are on shifting sands.
MB007 on July 1, 2008 at 3:39 PM
Because conservatives are always trying to put in place “separate but equal” institutions, those darned prejudiced jerks.
misterpeasea on July 1, 2008 at 3:41 PM
I’m not saying that liberal “separate but equal” rights, such as those conferred by affirmative action, are justified, but one can hardly accuse a court of judicial overreach when they strike down a distinction like the “marriage” vs. “domestic partnership” one that was in place in California. Perhaps they should reach a bit farther and rule against affirmative action.
Big S on July 1, 2008 at 3:43 PM
Yeah, that is true. Basically, I’m trying to point out that the federalism argument may not allow for what many here see as a reasonable solution to this question, because any future court action on whether the act violates Article IV section 1 may render the federalism argument moot.
I’m not a lawyer. Just speculating here.
JiangxiDad on July 1, 2008 at 3:49 PM
Ya, I agree, SEC is the best football conference. I love watching SEC games. Love the atmosphere. Oh well, at least Auburn has orange on its uniform.
We catch Georgia in Stillwater next year. First game! Ya, I heard about Holieway. But, when it comes to athletes being imbeciles, no University can cast any stones.
I would imagine that the hatred between the Cowboys and the Squatters, is not unlike the hatred between the Tigers and the Tide. Sometimes, hate is a good thing.
:O)
OhEssYouCowboys on July 1, 2008 at 3:51 PM
How are these folks “similarly situated,” such that they should be treated equally? You can’t treat people differently when the distinction you’re using is irrelevant to the differential treatment, but when the distinction IS relevant, you’re perfectly free to discriminate.
Men’s and women’s bathrooms – separate but equal. There’s no way in hell California should be able to have separate men’s and women’s bathrooms.
misterpeasea on July 1, 2008 at 3:51 PM
You sure are reasonable. I was just giving you grief, you folks are better than the Big 10, and I think you might have had us edged out a couple years there around 2000. If the North hadn’t fallen apart, it’d really be interesting. The rest of the conferences are hardly worth mentioning.
Georgia in Stillwater. Georgia is a juggernaut this year. Early is probably the best time to play them. Good luck.
Cowboys, Squatters; Tigers, Tide; Aggies, Longhorns. Which is why I was an Aggie fan when I went to Texas.
misterpeasea on July 1, 2008 at 3:59 PM
No such thing.
Because, of course, the only place where people still cling to Christian faith and values is in the rust belt, eh? The homosexual lifestyle is incompatable with Christianity. Period. That’s not to condemn homosexuals but thier lifestyle should not be legitimized by society either. Marriage remains a covenental relationship between one man and one woman under the eyes of God.
highhopes on July 1, 2008 at 3:59 PM
Rooting for A&M in Austin. I love it. I, also, graduated from Squat U – but, I wore my oSu shirts all of the time. F ‘em if they can’t take a joke.
The North [Big 12] was pretty good last year. Both KU and Mizzou really made a run. Dunno if they’ll be able to sustain it. Nebraska is looking to make a move, too. Maybe, even Colorado. My Pokes need to kick some ass and take some names, soon, or they’ll just end up being a middle-rung football team.
We catch Georgia when our renovated stadium is complete. I’m sure that it’s going to be a pretty highly charged atmosphere. It’ll help if my Pokes can do something decent this year.
I have a saying: The three (3) great plagues of mankind all begin with an “S” – Satan, Socialism and Sooners. After about 20 minutes, most Squatters figure it out.
:O)
OhEssYouCowboys on July 1, 2008 at 4:08 PM
oh please only a lib could say that. marriage isn’t a ‘right’. and gay marriage isn’t ‘marriage’ at all…and why only limit it to 2 with gay marriage logic?
keep dreaming if you think the CA court will ever rule against a liberal ideology.
right4life on July 1, 2008 at 4:15 PM
Anybody here read Heinlein?
misterpeasea on July 1, 2008 at 4:32 PM
The North: yes, it’s starting to recover, but. Nebraska is nowhere near being Osborne’s Bugeaters. And Colorado has yet to recover from Neuheisel. If those two had kept on keeping on, the Big 12 would be giving the SEC a run for their money.
Missouri and Kansas? I’ll start believing when they do it for 3-5 years in a row, and/or with Nebraska and Colorado playing better football.
misterpeasea on July 1, 2008 at 4:39 PM
Does anyone else perceive the repugnant idiocy of this comment?
Is it just me?
Enrique on July 1, 2008 at 4:46 PM
It’s politics, nothing really personal. The California amendment on the ballot to ban gay marriage is likely to bring out GOP voters in California, and possibly make Obama have to play some defense in a state that is supposed to be “safe.”
Sekhmet on July 1, 2008 at 4:46 PM
truth hurts doesn’t it?
this is why gays want to impose a gay sharia, and silence all who disagree with their ‘lifestyle’
right4life on July 1, 2008 at 4:48 PM
Auburn heh? Well thats a boat load better than your in state rival. (lets not even mention their name) I’m afraid Georgia is gonna be a handful this year with Moreno in the backfield.
Big Orange on July 1, 2008 at 4:55 PM
For everyone who’s concerned about SCOTUS appointments…
If McCain’s now against drilling for domestic oil, for gay marriage, open borders, McCain-Feingold and global warming, what distinguishes him from Obama in ideology? What makes the McCain supporters think that he won’t appoint another Souter, Bryer, Ginsburg or Stephens?
I’m falling back to my original position of letting Obama win and having the Democrats take the fall for the coming socialization of the country. Maybe then, the morons who put Obama and McCain in the nominated positions will get their heads out of their collective arses in 2012.
orlandocajun on July 1, 2008 at 5:03 PM
Christians and gays…never happen, next thing you’ll say something stupid like Christ loved a whore.
right2bright on July 1, 2008 at 5:04 PM
Christ loved a whore?
Some people actually believe that. And Mohamed actually married Aisha when she was 6 yeas old and then did the deed when she was 9. Cool, ain’t it??
wise_man on July 1, 2008 at 5:40 PM
Better read the bible my friend, Christ did love a whore…I will give you the verses if you need them, but I think you can find it on your own.
If you don’t believe that Christ loved a whore, then you are not (I suspect) a Christian.
right2bright on July 1, 2008 at 5:44 PM
Like VolMagic and I discussed, we’re united in our hatred of they who shall remain unnamed. And yes, UGa is looking tough. Heck, the whole East is looking tough. Almost as tough as the West. It’s going to be a brutal year. But we have a
prettygood schedule, so I’m optimistic.Speaking of brutal, how about you folks do us all a favor and teach Urban Meyer why it’s not a good idea to have a running QB in the SEC. I know you want to.
misterpeasea on July 1, 2008 at 6:22 PM
Yeah, I thought Christ loved everybody. He loved his enemies, why not a whore?
misterpeasea on July 1, 2008 at 6:23 PM
Definitely just you. I can defend my position and my post was respectful of the sinners while not joining contemporary society in claiming that gay marriage is a Christ-based mandate.
As part of the “many paths” crap of secular society, we are led to believe that Christ is nothing more than everybody’s BFF. Secular society has essentially “downsized” Christ so that he is viewed as nothing more than a buddy who will be high-fiving the multitudes upon His return.
In reality, Christ is “super-sized.” He is the Son of the Creator who died to exchange our sins for God’s righteousness. He will not return as a buddy but rather as one-third of the Trinity. He will not be welcoming of those who ignored his word and lived in unrepentent sin. Practicing homosexuals fall into this catagory.
highhopes on July 1, 2008 at 7:49 PM
So when is somebody going to get off their butt and start a new political party based on conservative values? I’ll except that maybe conservatives want to defeat barry and are keeping quiet now in hopes mccain will win. If after this election, when all is settled either way, the so called leading conservatives don’t begin a new party and jettison the republicans then I will know it’s all just a scam with members of the self annointed ruling political class playing good cop/bad cop with us. Conservatives elected Reagan, conservatives gave the republicans control of congress. I won’t fall for the bs that a new party can’t survive.
peacenprosperity on July 1, 2008 at 8:24 PM
I think this is still the tinderbox stage. We need a unifying event to bring about wholesale change.
In my former denomination, Presbyterian (USA) the event was a defacto junta of the top leadership that forced gay ordination on the denomination outside the normal procedures that had worked quite well for hundreds of years. Churches are leaving the PC(USA) in droves since that event. Most are going toward Bible-centered denominations more in keeping with God’s message and away from the PC(USA)’s social activism that includes boycotting Taco Bell and supporting pro-terrorist organizations of Hammas.
highhopes on July 1, 2008 at 8:36 PM
What could be more unifying then the media picking the two candidates? They have given us a liberal and a marxist to choose from. In case anyone hasn’t figured it out, bob barr is this years perot. The deal is done, barry is the next president. On second thought why would anyone wait until after the election? If there are real conservatives out there then something should be in the works now.
peacenprosperity on July 1, 2008 at 9:19 PM
I’m with you brother but the system doesn’t allow for that kind of outrage. We need to suffer some before the match is lit. The real conservatives ARE out there- I live among them and so do you. They just need the issue to reject a system that forces us to choose between McCain’s socialism and Obama’s Marxism.
My greatest ray of hope is the way that McCain was bitch-slapped when he tried to ram amnesty down our throats. I predict such popular uprising will continue no matter which liberal is elected in November.
highhopes on July 1, 2008 at 9:53 PM
Okay, you’ve forced me to make this prediction.
McCain or Obama, social conservatives and evangelicals will rise up AFTER the election. There’s still too much the pretense that uprising isn’t necessary. That will soon be dispelled when liberals take charge of the administration.
highhopes on July 1, 2008 at 10:23 PM
A “family” is a design structure that is self-contained and can reproduce itself. None of your examples are “family” because they cannot reproduce themselves, kind after kind.
They are households, but not families. And it is not marriage unless it is a male and a female because only a male and a female can reproduce with no help.
platypus on July 1, 2008 at 11:12 PM
Oh God yes I do!
Big Orange on July 2, 2008 at 7:40 AM
Exactly, that’s the point.
It is too easy to say he loved “everyone”, so we break it down to individuals…and we find out he loved, whores, gays, tax collectors, children, wealthy people…and when we do that, we run into a group that we don’t like and we have to gulp.
And so do people who cast dispersions and make assumptions that certain people are not “ready” to go to heaven. The key word is “ignored” (do you think God falls for that “repentent” con, how many times can you “repent”?), tell me, have you ever ignored Him, if so, you are going to be sharing eternity (by your standards) with a lot of your new gay friends.
right2bright on July 2, 2008 at 8:58 AM