One of the things Genevieve Wood brought up at the forum was the analogy of the movement for same-sex marriage to the movement for no-fault divorce. (Her comments on this matter occur at 31:30 in the recording) While the movement to eliminate prohibitions on interracial marriage is the favorite parallel of many advocates for same-sex marriage, the no-fault divorce parallel seems to be a favorite among many of those opposed. In both cases the parallel is generally brought up as a response to particular claims. In this case it was brought up by Wood as a response to the common claim of "How does same-sex marriage affect opposite-sex marriages?" She says that the same question was asked about no-fault divorce, namely "How does the no-fault divorce of an unhappy couple affect the marriage of somebody else?" And yet no-fault divorce has had a great impact on other marriages with divorce and cohabitation rising. She says marriage is a public institution, and that's why there can and will be a broader effect. I certainly agree that marriage is a public institution, but that doesn't really answer either question as to specifically how the other marriages are affected. So let us look at the comparison a little more closely to see how each change in marriage might have some broader effect.
The first difference I see is at the more direct level. Many of the harms from no-fault divorce come immediately from the divorce itself. That is the children of the marriage, in some if not many instances, would be better off if the couple remains married instead of the parents getting a divorce. I have yet to see anyone argue that the children of same-sex couples would be better off if the couple remains cohabiting instead of getting married. (Wood refers to arguments over the welfare of these children "emotional blackmail", but that's an issue for another post). So we see that already on the immediate level there is a big difference, and we will see how this difference can play out in the broader impact.
Part of how no-fault divorce impacted other marriages was through an imitation effect. As divorce became more common, people went into marriages without as much certainty that the marriage would last. This could become a self-fulfilling prophecy in at least two ways. One, people might be more reluctant to make personal sacrifices for the sake of the marriage with the knowledge that the marriage could end and they would have to be prepared to fend for themselves. Secondly, when times got rough, divorce was seen as a more realistic alternative. And then you have those that became reluctant to marry in the first place because of the rising divorce rate. Why marry just to divorce later? Especially vulnerable to this imitation effect are children of divorce themselves. If same-sex marriage has an imitation effect it would mean more people deciding to marry instead of cohabit. The demand for marriage is certainly a testament to its worth. Again this imitation effect is especially true for children of same-sex couples who could now grow up with marriage as a model instead of cohabitation. Furthermore, withholding same-sex marriage would continue to lead to a proliferation of marriage alternatives like domestic partnership plans that are open to oppposite-sex couples as well. Just as divorce became a more realistic alternative to remaining married, these programs as well provide opposite-sex couples many realistic alternatives to marriage in the first place.
This leads us back to another direct effect of no-fault divorce. No-fault divorce changed the rules of every marriage. Even for a couple that did not divorce there was always a chance of it occurring. Every marriage has at least a chance of going through some rough times. No-fault divorce made it at least a little more difficult to remain married through those times. With same-sex marriage, though, the same rules still apply to opposite-sex marriages. They just apply to other couples as well.
Later in the forum (1:11:20) Wood was asked whether she would support an amendment for a uniform national policy on divorce. She said no, because divorce did not alter the definition of marriage. I disagree. Whether marriage is a lifetime commitment, or just a temporary arrangement seems to me to be a much bigger difference in the definition of marriage than viewing one's spouse as a human being without reference to gender.
While I think lessons can and should be learned from the no-fault divorce debate, for example changes can have unintended consequences, I do not think the mechanism fits the same-sex marriage scenario very well. Nor do I think that such lessons forestall any change. We should take any claims about potential harms quite seriously, but we also need to carefully examine how such harms may come to pass.
UPDATE: Eve Tushnet responds with an additional difference and a dispute. Her difference is that divorce is not viewed as an ideal, whereas same-sex marriage is. I agree with this difference, but I see SSM as upholding marriage itself as an ideal. For it is allowing marriage over the alternative of cohabitation. I don't see it changing whom the ideal spouse is. For most Jewish mothers the ideal will still be a doctor.
She disputes the claim that divorce is a bigger change in definition, since many societies have had rules for divorce whereas viewing one's spouse without regards to gender is a late twentieth century innovation. I agree that the latter is more novel, but marriage has been progressing in that direction since the early nineteenth century. Which is a bigger change in definition depends on what specific change we are referring to. In general I'd say the exit requirements of marriage are more fundamental to its definition than the entrance requirements. As for the specifics I do see certain changes in divorce laws as greater alterations than the change from egalitarian marriage to allowing same-sex marriage. In regards to Jewish divorce, I would note that even that was rather a novel concept from my understanding. I don't believe other cultures at that time allowed a woman to remarry after divorce. (A man could of course remarry, but then a man could remarry even without a divorce). But much of this dispute I think comes down to what changes are "definitional" and what is a variation within that definition, a topic about which I hope to write soon.
Whether marriage is a lifetime commitment, or just a temporary arrangement seems to me to be a much bigger difference in the definition of marriage than viewing one's spouse as a human being without reference to gender.
We do agree on that aspect. I would go a bit further however and say that SSM could/would never have happened were it not for the damage that no-fault divorce has already inflicted on the institution. Of course, i have already argued that both are part-and-parcel with the feminist agenda to destroy notions of "family", "gender" and ultimately "private property" itself.
I would be much less opposed to same-sex marriage if they were held to the same high standard of "Til Death Do Us Part" that i expect from all responsible adults who make a solemn vow before God and Man.
Sadly, too many are neither adult, nor responsible, and these standards are being continuously lowered by our culture of "It aint none of your business if i do!"
A nice little connumdrum we can thank the radical lesbian feminists for...
Posted by: Marty | May 18, 2004 at 05:52 PM
Yes I saw your post that says marriage is dead. If that's your view then there can't be any harm in trying same-sex marriage to resuscitate it.
I'm all for holding all marriages to the same standards. Certainly the law will. Who knows, maybe a concern over gays living up to their obligations will lead people to take their own obligations more seriously and to enforce them?
When you say "too many" is that too many gays, too many straights, or just too many people in general?
Posted by: Galois | May 18, 2004 at 06:17 PM
I'm astonished to read the suggestion that feminists are universally plotting to destroy private property! I'm a feminist, and I'm all for private property. Of course, I've never liked the idea that *I* would be someone's property.
Posted by: lucia | May 18, 2004 at 06:37 PM
Marty: I would be much less opposed to same-sex marriage if they were held to the same high standard of "Til Death Do Us Part" that i expect from all responsible adults who make a solemn vow before God and Man.
What makes you think that same-sex couples won't hold themselves to the "same high standard" that opposite sex couples are (obviously not) being held to?
All couples should be held to the same standards. Right now, society has been telling people that marriage and standards don't matter, regardless of whether you're gay or straight. Obviously the solution to this problem, which has existed since before same-sex marriage was on the table, is to breed a society that has a culture of taking marriage seriously.
Writing dozens of laws and amending every constitution in the world to ban same-sex marriage isn't going to fix the societal problem of people - gay or straight - not taking marriage seriously.
If anything, it will degrade marriage further.
Anti-gay activists have been telling gays for years now that they and their children don't need marriage and its protections for their families. Well, guess what? That message is resonating with young straight people too.
Posted by: Zip | May 18, 2004 at 07:01 PM
Lucia, the problem is once you allow married women to own property you've practically destroyed the concept of private property.
Of course allowing married women to own property also destroys gender and of course the institution of marriage itself. Lesbian feminist E.J. Graff (I don't know if she's radical) collects some responses people had to proposed changes in the law that would allow married women to own property. From her book, What Is Marriage For?:
Let's hear it for radical lesbian feminism: "Trying to destroy family, gender, and private property since 1844"
Posted by: Galois | May 18, 2004 at 07:42 PM
Yes.... well.. and obviously, treating women as property did mean SSM made no sense. After all, if two men married, who would own whom?
Posted by: lucia | May 18, 2004 at 10:18 PM
I don't know how many of you have gone through a divorce, but let me lay out some of my experiences and why no-fault divorce is, in my mind, a good thing.
I met my first wife when I was 20. I had never really dated (a girlfriend for 6 weeks once in highschool) and was terribly inexperienced with relationships. Our serious relationship began when she moved in with me one day out of the blue. Three months later she asked me to marry her and I said yes, being in the smitten, dizzying, floating stage of infatuation. As our first year progressed, I started to notice that she was a very unhappy person with some serious problems. But I had made a commitment and was sure that we would be able to make it work. As the date of our wedding drew closer things got worse. But I was determined to stick it out, in no small part because of the embarrasment calling off our wedding would cause and the shame of not being able to follow up on the commitment that I had made when I accepted her proposal.
We got married in June of 1989. In October of that year one of my best friends died of cancer. At his funeral I met a group of people from high school that I hadn't seen in years. One of them had been one of my 2 best friends in school. We started spending more time with him. Then my wife had an affair with him. When I found out she was very apologetic and we managed to move on.
Four years later we had moved way out to the boondocks and things, if not great, were pretty steady. Then she had an affair with a guy she met at an art class at a community college. She left me and moved in with him. I moved in with friends. I tried for months to get back together with her and eventually we did. I told her in no uncertain terms that if she ever did that again that it would be over between us.
Four years later, after a move to the northwest, we went back east for my sister's wedding. I could only stay for a week, but my wife stayed an extra week so that she could go visit her family. When she arrived back home I could tell that something was going on. Sure enough she had started another affair. I demanded a divorce.
We agreed to the division of property very quickly and found a lawyer for her. Thank everything that we had not had children. I did not have a lawyer. We filed for divorce. A year later the divorce was finalized. Why did it take a year? It was a combination of things. My ex taking off for 3 months didn't help. The judge taking extra time to make sure that the division of property was fair to her was another reason. But mostly because that is how long it took to work its way through the process.
I was emotionally torn up during most of that time. I was a failure, unable to live up to my commitments. I can only imagine how much worse it could have been had I been forced to sue for divorce.
Why did my marriage fail? In large part because of my inexperience w/ dating and relationships. I didn't have any basis on which to be able to realize that she was not a good person for me to be with. I was only 20 when I met her, 21 when I got married and had never really dated before. My first wife was a troubled woman who had left home at 15, never completed high school, who had emotional problems (probably resulting from being sexually abused as a child). Whose fault was the failure of our marriage? Should we have been forced to remain legally and financially bound for the rest of our lives? Who would that have benefitted? How would society have profited from continuing this marriage?
When I agreed to get married I made a commitment to stay with her for my entire life. I did my best to honor that commitment even when it became clear that it was a huge mistake. I tried for close to 10 years and finally admitted my failure. This is probably a much more typical experience than the (purported) stories of people who marry and divorce because it's easy.
In my view, this really is the reason that no-fault divorce exists. The failure of my marriage was not one that should have required me to sue for divorce, to convince a judge, in court, that she was a bad person. To cost a lot more, both financially and emotionally, to end a disastrous marriage benefits nobody. When I entered into marriage the thought that I could easily divorce was never a factor in my decision. Maybe it is for some people, but I haven't met them yet.
Maybe I haven't put this as clearly as I'd like. Perhaps I'll come back after reviewing this and clarify anything that needs it.
Posted by: Jake Squid | May 19, 2004 at 01:17 PM
You make a good point Jake and I probably should have emphasized that I did not mean my post to be an endorsement of any particular position on divorce laws. My understanding is that there are other reasons for no-fault divorce as well. The court was becoming a mockery with people forced to "create" evidence of an affair. I wrote a little while back about the Cole Porter musical Gay Divorce which dealt with that situation. So there are certainly reasons for no-fault divorce, and they could very well outweigh the reasons against it.
My point was that with no-fault divorce I can see some reasons against it that should be considered on the scale. I do see how changing the rules regarding what is required for a divorce has impacts on all marriages. Those arguments do not carry over to same-sex marriage, though.
One point of clarification, I do not believe most people enter marriage with the thought of easy divorce (is divorce really ever easy?). I do believe that some people might enter marriage with the thought that the marriage could end in divorce. And I think that awareness has an effect on the marriage itself. I also believe that there could be situations where a couple today might divorce instead of remain married, and where that decision might not be the best for the children involved. (There are other issues involved like shouldn't the parents' opinion about what is best for their children matter a great deal more than mine.) I can't imagine a similar situation where a same-sex couple might marry instead of cohabit, and the decision to marry would not be in the child's best interests.
Posted by: Galois | May 19, 2004 at 01:54 PM
Great post, Gabriel. (And the post on "emotional blackmail" was terrific, as well).
Regarding Jake's post, the evidence is mixed regarding whether or not no-fault divorce laws have actually led to an increase in divorce over the long term. Some studies suggest that it led to an initial bump in divorces, as people who otherwise might have waited a year or two for a fault-divorce got a no-fault divorce immediately, but did not change the long-term divorce trend.
If so, that makes sense to me. As Jake said, the primary reason people decide to get a divorce isn't how easy or hard the divorce laws are. (Except, I suppose, in countries in which divorce is entirely illegal).
Posted by: Ampersand | May 19, 2004 at 01:59 PM
Regarding Jake's, Gabriel's, and Ampersand's comments... Maybe I'm out of it (I mean, I know I am, but maybe I'm out of it on this issue too), but I don't see how Jake's story has very much to do with *no-fault* divorce.
I can think of at least three types of divorce, in order of strictness: First, there's unilateral divorce for cause, where the aggrieved party divorces a spouse for (typically) adultery or abuse. Second, there's divorce by mutual consent. Third, there's unilateral divorce on demand - this is what I understand as "no-fault divorce".
Jake's case clearly qualifies as divorce for cause, seeing that his wife committed adultery with at least 3 different men. Practically any society that allowed divorce at all would allow Jake out of his marriage.
The "Gay Divorce" scenario (that's with an acute accent on the E, isn't it?), where estranged spouses conspire to fake evidence of adultery, really only applies in societies that permit divorce for cause but not divorce by mutual consent. The latter is still a long way from unilateral divorce on demand. Divorce on demand, for example, is what allows a business executive to replace his starter wife with a glamourous and delectable trophy wife. Or a husband to dump his wife when her looks go. Or a wife to leave a marriage because of the ugly mess created by her own infidelity. Viewed more abstractly, it tends (in a way the other two types don't) to reduce marriage to a pseudo-contract with merely symbolic force.
Obviously, I'm doubtful that no-fault divorce (if I've defined it correctly) is preferable to some of the more restrictive divorce regimes. However, it's an issue I'd be very interested in hearing discussed.
Posted by: Chris B. | May 21, 2004 at 02:54 PM
I don't want to speak for Jake, but what I thought he means is this: Even though he, as the aggrieved party, could have sought a fault based the divorce, and he would have been granted the divorce, he was glad his state permitted no fault divorce. It spared him the need to "trash" his wife in court.
My guess is that even if the "trashing" is nothing more than stating she committed adultery, and having her agree, being forced to do so can be hard on the innocent party. Everyone is aware that, ultimately, divorce documents are public-- unless sealed. It sounds like Jake was already devastated, and although he didn't say so, he probably still at least sort of loved his wife, despite deciding he needed a divorce.
Had Jake lived in Illinois, he would not have been able to apply for the no fault divorce when he learned of any of his wife's infidelities. He could either file for divorce on the grounds of adultery, or he would have been able to separate for 2 year and then file for irreconcilable differences. (I'm not sure of the term-- but if you don't specify a fault, you need to separate for 2 years before filing. His divorce would then probably have taken another year.)
I can see where, given the emotional circumstance surrounding marriage and divorce, the no fault provision was beneficial to Jake. The downside is that people can divorce for the reasons described by Chris B.
Posted by: lucia | May 21, 2004 at 03:24 PM
Jake's situation was one where he obtained a "no fault" divorce instead of a "fault" divorce. NOLO has this handy FAQ on the subject. (It has a footnote for Illinois that the separation can be just six months if both parties agree).
Just because grounds exists for a fault based divorce does not mean that one would want to seek that course instead of no fault as Jake's personal case illustrates. I believe his point was that either way he would have obtained the divorce, but that the "no fault" grounds causes had less emtional and financial costs. In his case there was mutual consent, in other cases ther might not be.
From the NOLO chart it seems that Ohio is the only state that allows one party to contest a no fault divorce. So what you refer to as divorce on demand is no fault divorce (although separation for a time period is often required), but the mutual consent also falls under no fault divorce.
As for the "Gay Divorce"/"Gay Divorcee" scenario and how it should be pronounced see this post. (It's pronounced differently only if there is an extra "e" referring to the person as opposed to the divorce itself)
Posted by: Galois | May 21, 2004 at 03:46 PM
Yes, my point was that the availability of no-fault divorce in my state cost me ex & myself much less both financially and emotionally than if I had been forced to sue for divorce for cause. For one thing, we only needed one lawyer. That is a HUGE financial saving. For another thing, having to appear in court and enumerate the bad things my ex-wife had done could only have been emotionally harmful to both of us. Also the time that it took was much less than the time it would have taken had I had to sue. And it was emotionally very important to be able to end things and never have to deal with her again. Once I never had to see or speak to her again a huge amount of stress, worry and depression was lifted from me. I believe that by being permitted to do a no-fault divorce that our community was spared a small but significant financial cost (court time, judges time, etc.).
I don't see the "trophy wife" or "looks" issues as contributing greatly to divorce. I'm not saying that it never happens, I'm just saying that I think that those sorts of cases are statistically insignificant.
Posted by: Jake Squid | May 21, 2004 at 04:04 PM
Footenote says six months? My husband will be happy to know I don't have an encyclopedic knowledged of the Illinois divorce code! ;-)
About the idea of the "trophy wife", I think the stereotype is some guy who makes a lot of money, dumps his wife for younger eye candy -- sort of like Trump dumping Ivana for Marla Maples. My impression is that even under fault grounds, these guys generally could get divorces. They just trotted right out, installed their girlfriends in hotel rooms one floor below their wives and carried on. Eventually, the wife would file for divorce. What the fault based divorce did was give the wife the option of staying married to a lout who treated her badly. As long as the wife provided no grounds, the lout couldn't divorce her.
Posted by: lucia | May 21, 2004 at 05:00 PM
fetisch vanessa hard femmine vip esibizionismo amatoriali free storie erotiche gay sixy manga grandi labbri femmina sfondata nonne grasse troie sesso amatorial
Posted by: aka | December 24, 2006 at 08:42 AM
Hello
New Site
http://heaven666.100freemb.com/heaven666.html
http://heaven666.100freemb.com/heaven666.html " rel="nofollow">heaven666
http://heaven666.100freemb.com/heaven666.html>heaven666
http://heaven666.100freemb.com/heaven666.html
http://heaven666.100freemb.com/heaven666-video.html
http://heaven666.100freemb.com/heaven666-video.html " rel="nofollow">heaven666-video
http://heaven666.100freemb.com/heaven666-video.html>heaven666-video
http://heaven666.100freemb.com/heaven666-video.html
http://heaven666.100freemb.com/heaven666-org.html
http://heaven666.100freemb.com/heaven666-org.html " rel="nofollow">heaven666-org
http://heaven666.100freemb.com/heaven666-org.html>heaven666-org
http://heaven666.100freemb.com/heaven666-org.html
http://heaven666.100freemb.com/dodge-heaven666-video.html
http://heaven666.100freemb.com/dodge-heaven666-video.html " rel="nofollow">dodge-heaven666-video
http://heaven666.100freemb.com/dodge-heaven666-video.html>dodge-heaven666-video
http://heaven666.100freemb.com/dodge-heaven666-video.html
http://heaven666.100freemb.com/blog-heaven666-org.html
http://heaven666.100freemb.com/blog-heaven666-org.html " rel="nofollow">blog-heaven666-org
http://heaven666.100freemb.com/blog-heaven666-org.html>blog-heaven666-org
http://heaven666.100freemb.com/blog-heaven666-org.html
Posted by: Wilddronik | June 23, 2007 at 02:37 PM
Sorry please (:
Wrnog category..
wijll be caerfgul
Posted by: attethyagig | June 26, 2007 at 02:56 AM
the best sport nutrition
http://www.maxsport.ee
Протеины Гейнеры Креатин Аминокислоты
хотите стать сильнее читайте и узучайте
Cжигатели жира Витамины low carb protein proteiin creatiin creatin amino
best body nutrition cytogen universal Nutrition Weider biotech
peak perfect fitnes bodybuilding buy order try in forum gallery eff wbbf
Eesti Fitnessi Foderatsioon stack lava hard fast fat burner Whey Protein
Premium pro CytoPro Milk & Egg Protein Crash 5000 Hyper Mass 5000
Creatin Monohydrat XXL Booster + BCAA Amino 5000 Aminoliquid
Amino Liquid - SK L-Glutamin Kapseln L-Glutamin Pulver xxl booster creatin
L-Carnitin Kapseln L-Carnitin Liquid L-Carnitin Liquid Lecithin Granulat
protein valk gym box body
http://www.maxsport.ee>read more about...
Posted by: seiGera | June 29, 2007 at 06:07 AM
seriously saved so much money going through these guys...
http://bathroomideas.virtuastudio.info>bathroomideas
check em out. well worth it
Posted by: bathrooms | July 01, 2007 at 06:48 AM
Мы предлагаем лесбийский массаж.
А ещё можно провести сеанс и другого http://www.ego-x.ru>эротического массажа. Эротический массаж стоит 1500 рублей.
Можно рассказать об этом по подробнее:
http://www.ego-x.ru>Эротический массаж-это прелюдия для любви одна из величайших радостей
человеческого бытия и вместе с тем неотъемлемый
элемент нашей повседневной жизни.
Из пяти доступных чувств осязание является
самым интимным. Оно позволяет понять друг друга без слов.
Прикосновение несет в себе страсть и любовь,
уверенность и сочувствие.
Оно способно расслабить и исцелить.
Для большинства людей представление о http://www.ego-x.ru>сексе
ограничивается мыслями о нескольких сантиметрах тела.
Прибегнув к массажу, Вы откроете,
что все тело может представлять собой http://www.ego-x.ru/girls>эрогенную зону.
Эротический массаж позволит Вам насладиться теплом
http://www.ego-x.ru/girls>женского тела и реализовать все Ваши http://www.ego-x.ru>эротические фантазии.
http://www.ego-x.ru/girls>Девушки ласкают Вас своими обнаженными телами,
возбуждают и доводят до полного физического расслабления.
Идет гармоничная имитация полового акта,
настолько реальная, что Вы даже не почувствуйте разницу.
http://www.ego-x.ru/vid_mas>Виды массажа...
Телефон: (495) 514-79-40
http://www.ego-x.ru>www.ego-x.ru
Posted by: polinaoVVo | July 03, 2007 at 08:55 AM
Hi!
Thousands of hours, gig upon gig, there are more videos here then you can shake a dick at!
http://poyyhh4.no.sapo.pt/lamictal.html>epilepsy lamictal patient rating remedyfind
http://jwmaycp.no.sapo.pt/penis.html>average penis size by age
http://tcenkl8.no.sapo.pt/baccarat.html>angel baccarat crystal
http://txopbe2.no.sapo.pt/public.html>nude in public gallery
Posted by: RulsapW | July 03, 2007 at 12:03 PM
Hi.
http://hot.ee/camz/cam>We offer to visit our new Adult site. Porn Web Cams beautiful girls posses for you.
Over 800 girls. Europe asian ebony latina and others.
http://hot.ee/camz>Also visit our Pay site.
Posted by: CamerAmann | July 03, 2007 at 08:55 PM
Holla, I promo one of the largest pharmacy markets in the World - Pharmacy Directory!
More then 300 drugs, online drugs, prescription, cheap prices.
Some examples
http://www.iac.rutgers.edu/database/redirect.php?target=http://maxdrugs.info/search.php?q=methocarbamol>methocarbamol
http://entex.hostonmars.com/center-energy-entex-point.html>center energy entex point
http://dream-shop.at/redirect.php?action=url&goto=maxdrugs.info/search.php?q=lupron>lupron
http://www.oeamtc.at/redirect.php?p=maxdrugs.info/search.php?q=allegra>allegra
http://combivent.8tt.org/combivent-inhalation-aerosol.html>combivent inhalation aerosol
http://www.immarketing.cc/redirect.php?url=http://maxdrugs.info/search.php?q=diflucan>diflucan
http://www2.library.unr.edu/vpaa/redirect.asp?url=http://maxdrugs.info/search.php?q=amoxicillin>amoxicillin
http://adderall.inviho.com/adderall-addiction.html>adderall addiction
http://entex.hostonmars.com/400-capsule-entex-pse.html>400 capsule entex pse
http://computer-news.ru/redirect.php?url=http://maxdrugs.info/search.php?q=bupropion>bupropion
Yours pharma directory
Posted by: pharmadir | July 05, 2007 at 05:11 PM
Sorry pleaase:(
Wrogn category...
willl careful
Posted by: TOOTPYMNARA | July 05, 2007 at 11:49 PM
We all are looking for someone special.
Thousands of singles are waiting for you right now at their homes.
Meet Your Perfect Match Now at this
http://married-dating.londonmatchmaking.com/index.html>married dating site.
Posted by: JimmyHardRockCafe | July 10, 2007 at 05:47 PM