Galois: Scandinavian Scare

Books Relevant to Same-Sex Marriage

Other Books of Interest

My Wish List

Blog powered by Typepad

Subscribe to this blog's feed

« Emotional Blackmail | Main | Bulletpoints of a Lost Post »

May 21, 2004

Scandinavian Scare

Stanley Kurtz has claimed for awhile now to have proof that same-sex marriage will destroy the institution of marriage by looking at what has happened in Scandinavia (where they passed marriage-like registered-partnerships in the late 80's to early 90's). This brief post of mine works as a nice gateway to some of what has been written by Kurtz, Andrew Sullivan, and myself on this subject. M.V. Lee Badget has a detailed rebuttal of Kurtz's arguments at Slate and I would encourage anyone with interest in the subject to read it in full. Her analysis looks more closely at the demographic evidence, which is certainly important, but I think some of her most important points lie elsewhere, towards the end of the article.

First of all there are some key differences between the United States and Scandinavia. As she writes:

And all the conservative hand-wringing seems especially unnecessary when you consider the various incentives that encourage American heterosexual couples to marry. By marrying, U.S. couples obtain health-insurance coverage, pensions, and Social Security survivor benefits. Plus, in the United States we are required by law to be financially responsible for our spouses in bad times, since we don't have Scandinavian-style welfare programs to fall back on.

Whereas allowing same-sex couples to marry does not change any of these incentives, not allowing same-sex marriage has been causing a change. For example, because same-sex couples are excluded from marriage many private employers have started offering health coverage and pension benefits to unmarried partners. The number of such companies has been rising dramatically every year. These programs are generally also available to opposite sex couples as well (often because of legal concerns about discriminating against such couples). Without same-sex marriage these programs will continue to proliferate and the situation will become more like Scandinavia in this regard.

Badgett also responds to Kurtz's claim of mechanism. He has said that same-sex marriage divides churches, and the more conservative churches that would speak out against SSM and against cohabitaton become less influential. Now there is much more separation of Church and State in the U.S. So issues about gays and homosexuality will not just disappear from the churches with an amendment banning same-sex marriage. As Badgett notes:

In addition, American society already wrestles with the social tensions that Kurtz claims have occurred as a result of gay marriage in Scandinavia: deepening divisions over gay issues in churches, the increasing acceptance of lesbian and gay relationships in the media, and the occasional radical voice arguing for the abolition of marriage. Yet heterosexual couples keep getting married—more than 2 million of them every year.

Same-sex marriage did not cause these social tensions and banning it will not remove them. Of course legalizing same-sex marriage will also not remove them. Either way churches will have to deal with difficult issues like what is expected of its gay congregants? Lifelong celibacy? Closeted affairs? Private commitment ceremonies? Commitment ceremonies with religious blessing? Same-sex religious marriage even without the civil sanction? Marriage to someone of the opposite sex? In the political arena not allowing same-sex marriage must lead to a second debate over what should be done to protect same-sex couples and their children. If we are not going to have SSM, then what are we going to do? Domestic partnerships? If so, what should they look like? How should they be treated in another state? What should guide the courts in dealing with them? Should they be open to opposite-sex couples? I don't believe that a Constitutional Amendment is going to put gays back in the closet. One way or another this issue must be faced.

UPDATE (5/25): Kurtz has a response to Badgett. He writes:

Badgett's case is built on statistical sleight of hand. And his [sic] claim that "heterosexual marriage looks pretty healthy in Scandinavia" flies in the face of a broad scholarly consensus.

Kurtz makes some good points, but he still doesn't explain how requiring homosexuals to cohabit instead of marry will reinforce the benefits of marriage and the harms of cohabitation. I just wrote more on the Dutch example here. Oh and he seems to be wrong about Badgett's gender. She is indeed a woman.

09:17 AM in Kurtz | Permalink

Comments

Semi stupid question: Where is Stanley Kurtz's actual statistical analysis? I keep reading various post blogs and articles, including his own, that alludes to the statistical analyses that he supposedly performed, but I can't find anything. No one who cites Kurtz mentions where the analyses is-- and even when I ask them, they don't respond. So... anyone know of any analysis by Kurtz that includes a real statistical analysis of anything at all?

Posted by: lucia | May 21, 2004 at 11:34 AM

There's also the whole issue that what Scandinavia has is CIVIL UNION. Which is not marriage.

Scandinavia is the complete proof for Jonathan Rauch's arguments in favour of gay marriage, with which I agree 100%.

Posted by: Azalais | May 21, 2004 at 02:44 PM

I'm really tired of Kurtz perpetrating this fraud all over the place. Not only do his arguments and "logic" not stand on their own, but they've been completely debunked by bloggers and columnists over and over again.

But Kurtz keeps peddling his lies. Because he's not concerned about the truth, he's concerned about furthering his agenda. Even if he has to lie and be intellectually dishonest to do so.

Posted by: Zip | May 24, 2004 at 12:01 PM

>>Galois: "Without same-sex marriage these programs will continue to proliferate and the situation will become more like Scandinavia in this regard."

I doubt that SSM, if enacted, would stop the proliferation of programs. Any rollbacks would be resisted tooth and nail, I think.

>>Galois: "Now there is much more separation of Church and State in the U.S. So issues about gays and homosexuality will not just disappear from the churches with an amendment banning same-sex marriage."

The churches are not less influential in Scandinavia. The congregations that raised the rainbow flag also have banned clerical dissent in the pulpit and throughout church functions. This has had a significant influence in the communities in which they operate. Something similair is happening in parts of Canada where, for example, the Anglican church is on the verge of schism one city at a time. In some places, one congregation at a time. [Learning quite a bit in my travels north this summer.] Where Scandinavian churches have ensured the freedom of clergy to speak out, there has been greater resistance to the trends that Kurtz has noted.

>>Galois: "In the political arena not allowing same-sex marriage must lead to a second debate over what should be done to protect same-sex couples and their children."

Most homosexual adults don't live as couples. Maybe 15% in some regions. And in places where SSM has been available -- parts of Canada, Europe, and Vermont -- not many sign-up for state sanction. If I recall correctly, less than 40% of same-sex couples have registered in California. I don't know what the "married" percentage is for such couples with children, but what do you think would happen if we learn how few bother to enjoy the bennies of SSM? Extend marriage-like status to the non-married couples so as to protect them and their children?

>>Galois: "Domestic partnerships? ... I don't believe that a Constitutional Amendment is going to put gays back in the closet. One way or another this issue must be faced."

I don't think that SSM is going to put most gays into marriage. SSM will not prove to be as popular nor as normative nor as successful as marriage has been for man-woman couples (and for children).

In heart-to-heart discussions with homosexual friends and associates, I've heard about the appeal of living in partnership with a trusted lover (or roomie), but what they have in mind didn't sound like marriage. No interest in children, sexual exclusivity, and a general distaste for conformity to "heterosexual norms". I met two smart and informed lesbian couples from Quebec where domestic partnership has been available and they are now free to "marry". But they weren't interested in SSM. [They teased me with their own questions, believe me. ;-)]

Of course, my social circle here (and that of my married and somewhat liberal niece in Canada) is not a scientific sampling and I don't base my opinion solely on my informal survey of a couple of dozen people. But I do think that SSM would be rejected in practice by the vast majority of homosexual men and women. They'll just continue as they have been: experimenting with a wide variety of informal living arrangements. A few will shack-up, some for the longterm, and a few will include children, and some will eventually say "I do"; but most will say, thanks but no thanks, to formal SSM.

So, yes, I think you will be revisiting the domestic partnership scenario. Whether it fits the need better, I dunno.

If I'm right about SSM, the energy expended on the legal reform of marriage would not deliver the payback for homosexual men and women that would come anywhere near compensating for the harm that I expect is already being done to the marriage idea in the wider society. Even DP may prove more popular with man-woman couples than with same-sex couples. Quebec is not a perfect analog, but already 30% of man-woman couples cohabitate outside of marriage as compared with about 10% in other parts of Canada and here in the US.

Posted by: chairm | July 23, 2004 at 12:24 PM

I doubt that SSM, if enacted, would stop the proliferation of programs. Any rollbacks would be resisted tooth and nail, I think.

I believe it would greatly reduce the proliferation of new programs, (although not stop them completely). AS for rollbacks of existing ones, there would be some resistance but not as much resistance as there would be without SSM. It is likely that some would be removed. We've already seen some employers in Massachusetts announce plans to remove DP programs. I have seen no plans to start new DP programs in Massachusetts.

As for the churches, I think you miss my point. What I am saying is that regardless of what conclusions the states reach on the issue of SSM, churches will have to deal with many divisive issues regarding recognition of same-sex couples. I don't see as how a constitutional amendment settles the issue for the church. (By the way I fully support the freedom of clergy, as well as others, to freely speak their minds about all issues.)

I agree that even with SSM there will be a debate over extending benefits to unmarried couples. My point is that if, as Kurtz says, that debate over these issues is problematic, then the FMA doesn't solve the problem. If actually extending benefits to unmarried couples is problematic, then I think that is far more likely to happen without SSM then with it.

Arguments for DP's when there is no SSM are strong. We want to help these families. We aren't allowing them to marry, so at least we will them some form of DP. (And then once a DP is offered it is often offered to opposite-sex couples as well). If we allow them to marry, then it is their decision not to take on the responsibility of marriage that is depriving them of the "benefits". Rauch refers to this as the cardinal rule. "If you want the benefits of marriage, get married."

Finally, even if SSM was rejected by a vast majority of homosexuals (which I don't forsee, but will accept as a hypothetical), I would not deprive those families who would lake to take on those responsibilities and protections simply because you categorize them in such a way that they are a minority who would do so. If statistics showed that the majority of YUPPIES do not marry, I would not want to use that from denying marriage to YUPPIES.

Of course much of that depends on how you see the harm done to the greater society by adopting SSM. I don't see any such harm, so even if only one same-sex couple got married, that would be enough for me.

Posted by: Galois | July 23, 2004 at 03:05 PM

Admittedly, it is too soon to have seen decisive movement on DP programs. Even if employers cutback, when SSM proves to be unpopular among same-sex couples, the programs will reappear. I doubt that activists will let existing programs lapse. And state legislatures are even less likely to rollback DP regimes.

The propositon that court-imposed SSM would push out DP seems like wishful thinking. I think it is a false dichotomy. The Catch-22 is that the marriage culture needs to become stronger before alternatives can be reduced or contained; but the more that DP-like programs proliferate, the harder it becomes to strengthen the marriage culture. SSM would merely fortify these alternatives, rather than counter them.

On one hand we could start by restricting such programs to unmarriagable couples. On the other hand, can we really prevent employers from setting up benefit programs that help recruit and retain employees?

Regarding the Scandinavian churches, you seem to underestimate the extent of separation of church and state over there. Arguably they are much more secularized that church-goers are here.

If your point is just that controversial subjects will continue to be controversial, I guess that's obvious. The FMA is not proposed as a solution to controversy. It would send back to the state legislatures, and to the people, the debates over marriage. I don't think anyone expects the advocates of SSM to stop advocating or for marriage boosters to leave the public square during the ratification process or even afterward.

But a successful FMA would renew the national consensus and that would do more to resist erosion of the marriage idea than simply letting courts impose SSM. On the other hand, if you are right and I am wrong about SSM, it would be better if the nation had the opportunity to build a new consensus as transition to the reforms you advocate.

>>Galois: "even if SSM was rejected by a vast majority of homosexuals (which I don't forsee, but will accept as a hypothetical), I would not deprive those families who would lake to take on those responsibilities and protections simply because you categorize them in such a way that they are a minority who would do so"

You would not deprive them, but most same-sex couples are not likely to sign-up for SSM. That would leave the target child population without the additonal protections you want to deliver. Futhermore, the elimination of the more popular DP programs would deprive children of protections they currently have. I don't think that SSM enactment would do away with DP nor would it solve the child-related problem borrowed as a way to bring children under the SSM banner.

The homosexual adults who adopted or used ART did so knowing that same-sex couples are ineligible for marriage. They had no reasonable expectation that marital status flowed from parental status -- and no claim to the indirect additonal protections that might extend from marriage. Besides, in most cases the children have both moms and dads who have divorced. If we accept that adults make informed decisions about adoption, ART, and divorce then the deprivation, if any, originates with the parents, not the eligibility criteria of marriage.

Posted by: chairm | July 24, 2004 at 10:17 AM

Chairm... I have a question related to portions of this: The congregations that raised the rainbow flag also have banned clerical dissent in the pulpit and throughout church functions. ..... Where Scandinavian churches have ensured the freedom of clergy to speak out, there has been greater resistance to the trends that Kurtz has noted.

Do you have any evidence to support this opinion other than Kurtz's claim in his article?

Posted by: lucia | July 27, 2004 at 08:38 AM

[url=http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article.jhtml?articleID=672971]Church Flies Gay Flag[/url] artile in Aftenposten (News from Norway)
English edition.

[quote]

"...People who have other viewpoints must simply remain silent. That applies to priests as well," Melling said.

The clergyfolk and council members stressed that the flag also symbolized a positive attitude towards homosexual clergy, including those that wish to live in partnership.

Svein Tennes, leader of Svolvaer's parish council doesn't think the flag-waving is a good idea, and expects many parishioners will react.

"I do not think this will help the homosexual cause. There are strong feelings about this in the congregation, and I don't think the flag is a good idea," Tennes said.

[/quote]

I think there are other reports on the internet but most will not appear in English, of course.

Posted by: chairm | July 27, 2004 at 01:20 PM

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I wasn't doubting the fact that flags were waived. It's this part I wanted to know about: Where Scandinavian churches have ensured the freedom of clergy to speak out, there has been greater resistance to the trends that Kurtz has noted

Has anyone done survey of showing that, generally, in places where churches fly gay flags, there is greater resistance to any particular trend Kurtz is supposedly showing? And which trend in particular trend is associated with places where flags are flow?

The way I read Kurtz's article he says this:
1) I found one county where two churches flew flags.
2) That particular county has a higher level of unwed births than average.
3) Hence, there must be a nationwide association with gay flag flying and unwed births.

I wanted to know if that's pretty much the argument, of if Kurtz's has shown any association flag flying and anything.

Posted by: lucia | July 27, 2004 at 01:47 PM

>>Lucia: "Has anyone done survey of showing that, generally, in places where churches fly gay flags, there is greater resistance to any particular trend Kurtz is supposedly showing?"

It is the other way around. The rainbow flag signals a ban on dissent. This removes the influence of clergy who would encourage resistance to the message that SSU is marriage.

Lucia, if you want to get to the source, you will need to examine the work of Dutch experts and the Census database available from the Dutch government. Heavy slogging and not for the lightfooted dilitantes, I can assure you. If I have some time I'll attempt to find at least some english language reports in the popular press that I have read recently.

Posted by: chairm | July 27, 2004 at 09:25 PM

Chairm: Lucia, if you want to get to the source, you will need to examine the work of Dutch experts and the Census database available from the Dutch government.

1) Kurtz's single flag story is in Norway.

2) Kurtz claimed there is an association between flag flying and the decline of death of marriage in Scandinavia. Now, you claim it.

I agree heavy slogging would be required to support such a claim. Has anyone done even attempted the statistical slogging to support the claim?

I know you are very meticulous about these things, and believe people should not be hasty about making claims. :-)

Posted by: lucia | July 28, 2004 at 07:49 AM

[Did I confused Holland and Norway in that last comment? Now I feel like Streisand mixing up Iran and Iraq... or like me asking a Dutch friend where he was born in Denmark. Well, it is not like I don't get mistaken for a Canadian from time to time. ;-) ]

The Norwegian political scene is well covered in their press. The census data is available. I've read the analysis of at least two experts, but it was probably hardcopy. As I said, if I can get the ref or provide a link, I will. Shouldn't stop other eager beavers from looking, no?

Posted by: Chairm | July 28, 2004 at 11:13 AM

>>Shouldn't stop other eager beavers from looking, no?
I have no intention of looking for statistics on the frequency of gay flag waving at the likely thousands of Lutheran chruches in the numerous counties in Norway.

I am aware that the statistics for the birthrate are available.

If you wish to collect the data, and learn if there is a correlation, I'll be interested in reading the final result!

Posted by: lucia | July 28, 2004 at 09:13 PM

Apart from my digging up a source that articulates the point, what is it about the assertion that you have difficulty accepting at face value?

Posted by: Charim | July 29, 2004 at 06:59 AM

The bald claim that flag waving is correlated with out of wedlock birth rates?

My difficulty is this: People appear to be claiming a correlation has been demonstrated when it appears that no one has even attempted to find one. After claiming the correlatioin has been proven, these people use the supposedly proven correlation to buttress some futher argument.

This is clearly ridiculous.

A truthful statement might be:
No-one has bother to even attempt to find a correlation, but I predict if one were to go to the trouble of digging up data and finding a correlation one would find it existed. If such a correlation exists, I believe it would mean: "Yada, yada yada".

Everyone would recognize this as a very, very weak argument for proving anything at all. (Cynics would suspect a person relying lacks a good argument.)

Posted by: lucia | July 29, 2004 at 12:43 PM

But the assertion is that removal of dissenting voices, especially leading voices, has an influence on behavior within the flock.

It is not merely flag-waving, as you put it. It is a ban on dissent not just in the pulpit, in the church building, but also in the works and activities of the congregation.

Would you not *expect* such a ban, if applied to your side of the SSM discussion, to have an influence for better or for worse? The churches in Norway that do not fly the rainbow flag do not signal a ban on open discussion.

If you look into it, Lucia, you may learn more than just waiting for things to fall out of the sky into your lap. Do some homework on this before batting away the bans as mere "flag waving".

Posted by: Chairm | July 29, 2004 at 04:04 PM

Chairm: No one has shown an association between X=(out of wedlock births) and Y =(Norwegian churches who prohibit pastors from preaching against homosexuality) either.

When you said this: The congregations that raised the rainbow flag also have banned clerical dissent in the pulpit and throughout church functions. ..... Where Scandinavian churches have ensured the freedom of clergy to speak out, there has been greater resistance to the trends that Kurtz has noted.

You appeared to be claiming that what Kurtz had claimed is true. What he claimed what that X (as defined her) is correlated with Y (as defined here) and that this has been "shown".

This has not been shown. No one has attempted to show it.

Now, it seems to me that:

a) if X is correlated with why is for some reason, important to your argument, and
b) you actually believe the correlation is true, then
c) you would be interested in actually finding the data, calculating the correlation and showing it. And finally:
d) If you found the correlation was positive, you would show the evidence to the people who you wish to convince.

No one who is advancing this argument X is correlated with Y is showing any evidence, and you now seem to suggest that, in fact, no one has done the leg work to show X is correlated to Y.

So much for the issues associated with same sex marriage.
============
Now for the part that has nothing to do with same sex marriage.

You are now asking an entirely different question which is: Do I think congregations should be able to ban preachers from preaching on certain topics and would a ban have an effect either for good of for ill.

Of course I believe it has an effect. I will explain at some length.

As it happens, I am not a Protestant and never was. My undertanding is that one of the features of Protestant congregations is that they can vote and agree on general topics permissible in sermons. They can vote to prohibit ministers from discussing pagan principle. They can insist on ministers be celibate, or permit them to marry. They can vote to prohibit guitar mass. They can hire and fire their pastors at will.

Certainly, this has consequences. The consquences appearts to be that the minister's religious beliefs must ultimately reflect those of his congregation. Otherwise, that minister must find another congregation. That is to say: They will fire a minister if they find his beliefs to be inconsistent with theirs.

Frankly, I don't see a problem with this. I don't know why any congregation should be required to endure a minister whose religious beliefs offend them. Following this system, everyone has freedom of religion. However, a minister may have to find a job elsewhere.

Things are different in the Catholic church. The congregation cannot dictate the priest's sermons. In consequence, if the congregation, en mass, finds they do not agree with the priests religious beliefs, they must break away from the church. Large scale break aways have occurred from time to time. One of these times was referred to as "The Reformation".

These days it is more common for individual Catholics to simply fall away or not attend.

The Catholic church's method also does not inhibit freedom of religion. Everyone can believe what they wish to believe, but some people can decide they are not Catholics.

On the balance, I don't see the method Protestants have chosen to ensure their ministers share the congregations religious beliefs is a bad thing. This method of operating a church seems to conform to their religious beliefs. I think it would be a bad thing to insist Protestants adhere to practices of the Roman Catholic Church.

Posted by: lucia | July 29, 2004 at 05:44 PM

Chairm:
Just in. If you believe religiously enforced bans on matters of conscious lead to skyrocketing out of wedlock birth rates, do you anticipate the ban described in the article I linked will lead to skyrocketing out of wedlock birthrates? It begins:

(Portland, Oregon) As a lay liturgical minister and a cantor, Wilma Hens was a leader for years at her Roman Catholic parish in the central Oregon city of Bend. But then Bishop Robert F. Vasa issued a two-page "affirmation of faith." It tells lay ministers and cantors that, if they want to continue in their roles on the altar, they must accept the church's teachings opposing abortion, contraception, gay relationships and other issues.

Or do the bans only cause problems when the laity enforce them? Or when the bans are in favor of SSM instead of against it?

Posted by: lucia | July 30, 2004 at 06:26 PM

Earlier, I offered to post refs for hardcopies of material I had read on this topic. I said I'd post links to the material if available on-line.

I am in no hurry to respond, Lucia, as I really don't have the oodles time to devote to this SSM issue that you seem to have in abundance. Just a week or so ago I provided you with a few refs and links in response to an inquiry you made. I've done the same for others who have contacted me. I doubt there is any true advantage in trying to steer you wrong, you know.

For a better understanding of the Lurtheran Church in Norway during the past decade or so, there is background info available on-line, I'm quite sure of that. But I would advise looking farther afield than the gay activist sources for a little balance.

Now, if I offer to come back with a link or a ref on the background relevant to the past decade or two in Norway, will you find the strength to hold back from claiming that I've suggested there is no one with info and that none actually exists? ;-)

I'm no expert on Norway, either, but it is astonishing that you would minimize the importance of the purpose of the Ranbow flag -- something for which the gay activists fought hard.

Removal of dissenting voices can be expected to have an influence on a congregation and on the wider culture in which it exists. In Norway the grassroots have often been contradicted by the elites in the Church in key areas. Sometimes the desire to smooth things over, to maintain a semblance of unity, has overriden religious principles that had been widely accepted until very recently. In this the Church in Norway is not unique but this is a significant piece of the puzzle and shouldn't be underestimated or taken out of context.

Posted by: Chairm | July 30, 2004 at 11:18 PM

In reply to your last post, I'd repeat what I said in an earlier post:

"Would you not *expect* such a ban, if applied to your side of the SSM discussion, to have an influence for better or for worse? The churches in Norway that do not fly the rainbow flag do not signal a ban on open discussion."

It can operate in both directions. Hence the resistance that would be expected in some counties and the diminishing resistance in other counties.

Posted by: Chairm | July 30, 2004 at 11:36 PM

Chairm,
I know you offered to cite sources some time ago. I would be happy to see them. I have not suggested that your failure to provide them so far implies they do not exist.

After offering to cite sources you suggested that the data are available and some eager beaver might wish to actually do the calculation. As we are the two people involved in this discussion, I thought you were suggesting I might be that eager beaver. I volunteered I did not intend to do so. (Frankly, I think finding a list of all lutheran churches in Norway, and identifying which ones are flying gay rights flags would be difficult. Doing the calculation with an incomplete list would be pointless.)

Afterwards, you asked me Apart from my digging up a source that articulates the point, what is it about the assertion that you have difficulty accepting at face value?

I answered that at some length. I recognize that I explained why failure to back up the claim with evidence is a problem for me. However, I did not mean to imply that you, personally, needed to go out and dig up the evidence. I was also not suggesting that you were excessivly tardy in supply the evidece. I was simply answering the question, and explaining why I would like to see the evidence.

Afterwards you asked whether I might not *expect* some consequence of a decision by a Lutheran church. I answered that. Since it was a very broad question, I felt that a very broad answer was required. I think there are consequences to nearly all actions, and those consquences can be good or bad.

That said, I doubt either the anti-SSM Catholic ban, imposed from top down, or the pro-SSM Lutheran ban, imposed bottom up would affect the out of wedlock birth rate-- which is of coures the specific consequence we are discussing. This particular consequence seems utterly implausble. However, if someone presented solid statistically significant evidence, I might change my mind.

I do not know why you object to my answering your questions. I do not object to your answering mine.

I am, btw, aware that you have less time to devote to this that I.

I have not implied you should be doing the calculation. Maybe it does; maybe it doesn't. All I am suggesting is that, if the existence of this correlation is important to your argument, (or Dr. Kurtz's-- who you cited) then it would strengthen your argument to show the correlation. Obviously, people who doubt it will remain unconvinced that the correlation exists until such time as you do provide the correlation.

Just call me "Doubting Thomas". If someone claims there is a statistical correlation, I want to see the proof.

Posted by: lucia | July 31, 2004 at 01:33 PM

8th street latinas -
adult associate -
adult movie matrix -
adult movie network -
adult movie station -
all about ashley -
all access reality -
all amateur movies -
all inclusive pass -
all petite -
all reality pass -
all sites access -
all star porn girls -
all teens -
all xxx -
always amateurs -
amateur idols -
amazing anal -
amazing gangbangs -
american bukkakes -
anal asap -
anal intensity -
anal rush -
anal starlets -
anal suffering -
angels of porn -
asian angels -
asian nudes -
asian sex trip -
asian spreads -
asian tease -
asia porno -
ass licking xxx -
ass munchers -
ass parade -
ass to mouth angels -
athens girls -
atm babes -
backroom facials -
backseat auditions -
backseat bangers -
bad girls club -
bad tushy -
ball honeys -
bang boat -
bang bros network -
bang bus -
banging machines -
bangkok bangers -
bang me boys -
bareback bottoms -
barefoot maniacs -
barely legal -
bi experience -
big cock addiction -
big dicked shemales -
big naturals -
big nipple -
1000 facials -
1by day -
big sausage pizza -
big tit invasion -
big tit patrol -
bikini banger -
bitch mobile -
bizarre fisting -
black ass busters -
black college teens -
black mama -
black on white -
black regin xxx -
black snake -
blacks on blondes -
blowjob junkie -
bondage planet -
boob exam scam -
boob squad -
booty breakers -
booty cakes -
booty seeker -
booty studio -
booty talk -
boys first time -
brain pass -
brandy didder -
britney lightspeed -
broadband xxx movies -
bruno b -
brutal blowjobs -
buff men -
bus stop whores -
busty beauties -
captain stabbin -
carol cox -
cash strapped teens -
casting couch teens -
celeb hotel -
celeb ticket -
chick trick -
christine young -
circle jerk boys -
circus penis -
club seventeen -
club titties -
club tranny -
coed chicks -
college fuckfest -
college invasion -
college wild parties -
creamed feet -
creampie freaks -
creampie party -
creampie surprise -
cruise patrol -
cum cheeks -
cum fiesta -
cum girls -
cum splatter -
cum swapping bitches -
cum thristy -
cruious hunks -
dana lightspeed -
deep oral girls -
deep oral guys -
deep throating blowjobs -
deputy dick -
dildo dippers -
dirty dykes -
dirty road trips -
dirty teen -
dirty xxx sex -
discount reality sites -
download pass -
dream kelly -
easy elders -
ebony cafe -
ebony candy -
ebony cheeks -
ebony climax -
ebony head -
ebony hunger -
ebony knights -
erica lightspeed -
euro bride tryouts -
euro fuck trip -
exploited black teens -
extreme urabon hentai -
face sitters -
facial land -
facial masters -
fantasy handjobs -
farm girls -
farm secrets -
fast times at nau -
fatty fatty -
fetish planet -
first time auditions -
first time swallows -
fist bang -
foot babes -
foot cravings -
foot fetish -
frank wank -
freak cock -
french pee -
fresh black -
fucked for free -
fucked tits -
fucking toons -
fuck omat -
fuck spy -
gang bang divas -
gangbang lessons -
gangbang models -
gangbang squad -
gay blind date sex -
gay dream boys -
gay player -
gay sugar daddy -
gay super cock -
giants black meat white treat -
girlie zoo -
girl ranch -
girls are nuts -
girls hunting girls -
give me pink -
glory hole station -
gogo video -
goo girls -
got fooled -
got nailed -
got pornstars -
grande girls -
granny fucking -
handjob auditions -
hardcore farms -
hardcore partying -
hardcore sweethearts -
hard pornostars -
hentai playground -
her first anal sex -
her first ass to mouth -
her first big cock -
her first dp -
her first flick -
her first lesbian sex -
his first huge cock -
his first threesome -
hollywood exposed -
hood bobbin -
hood hunter -
horny spanish flies -
hosuewife bangers -
hot haley -
hot nude granny -
huge dicks little chicks -
india covered -
india dreamgirl -
interracial fuck -
interracial retreat -
interracial sex fest -
ir orgy -
i spy camel toe -
jenny heart -
jesse jane -
jungle girls -
just ebony -
just facials -
just hardcore sex -
kelly summer -
king chile -
kinky mature sluts -
lacey white -
latin adultery -
latina princesses -
latina time -
latins finest -
leg world -
lesbian recruiters -
lesbian sex city -
lesbian suite -
lesbo rama -
lesbo trick -
lex steele -
licka licka -
little april -
little summer -
male next door -
male pay per view -
male rentals -
mandy lightspeed -
man jizz -
mature appeal -
mature caress -
mature temptations -
maximum pills -
maximum cock -
maximum orgy -
me and my pussy -
meat holes -
mega cock -
mega porn access -
mega site pass -
mellon land -
mike in brazil -
mikes apartment -
milf challenge -
milf cruiser -
milf explorer -
milf hunter -
milf lessons -
milf next door -
milf searcher -
milf seeker -
milfs exposed -
milf theatre -
mini boobs -
mission upskirt -
miss mya -
moes white booty hoes -
mom bang -
moms need cash -
mondo porno -
monster hooters -
movie access -
movie flux -
mr13 inch -
mr chews asian beaver -
mr skin -
my sisters hot friend -
naughty american vip -
naughty nati -
naughty office -
now hiring sluts -
nude beach house -
nude celebs revue -
old babes home -
older ladies -
older women love cock too -
old tarts -
one crazy night -
only blowjob -
orgy heaven -
orgy machine -
pantyhose delight -
panty peeks -
penetration tease -
perfect orgy -
peter north -
peters cumshots -
petite lust -
petite stars -
pimp my black teen -
pink candy shavers -
please bang my wife -
porn pay per view -
pornstar tryouts -
porn video outlet -
pregnant bang -
premium archive -
private gold -
public amateurs -
pump that ass -
pure interracial -
pure teen porn -
puritan sex -
ram rod -
rap video auditions -
rate my tranny -
raw amateurs -
real ass munchers -
real butts -
reality porn pass -
reality sex vision -
real mega porn -
real squirt -
real time videos -
rent adult -
roger celeb -
ronni tuscadero -
round and brown -
sammy4u -
sapphic erotica -
sara sexton -
school girls -
secret celeb -
secret fetishes -
see her gag -
see her squirt -
sergeant sodomy -
sex and submission -
sex centerfolds -
sex illustrated -
sex pay per view -
sex spy -
shemale beach -
shemale fuck sluts -
shemale hookups -
shocking cocks -
simon scans -
simply gay -
size genetics -
slam that ass -
sleep assault -
slut movies -
slut toons -
smut -
solo girls -
spanked and abused -
spoiled slut -
spring thomas -
spy cams -
spy sex files -
squirting chicks -
strip club exposed -
stroke jobs -
stud toons -
sugar mamas -
super bush -
supermarket whores -
super twink -
tasty teen babes -
taylor bow -
teen body -
teen buster -
teen cumers -
teen dirtbags -
teen dreamer -
teen factory -
teen goddess -
teen hitchhikers -
teen sex planet -
teens for cash -
teen teen teen -
teen topanga -
teen travels -
teeny bopper club -
teeny guide -
texas dildo massacre -
tgirl adventures -
tgirl handjobs -
tgirl island -
the bait bus -
the big swallow -
the lucky man -
the pipe layer -
throat jobs -
thug boi -
tinys black adventures -
tiny secrets -
tittie fuckers -
tit vision -
tokyo fuck fest -
tongues and toys -
tonys casting couch -
top shelf pussy -
tranny centerfolds -
tranny extasy -
tranny pursuit -
tranny surprise -
tranny trick -
tranny trouble -
trixie teen -
true celebs -
true male celebs -
true twinks -
truly 18 -
truly tranny -
tushy school -
twinks for cash -
twinks from the hood -
ultimate surrender -
ultra toons -
upskirt school -
usa escorts -
vanilla teens black cream -
vengified -
video box -
video seekers -
want wendy -
web mature -
web teenagers -
wet scape -
who wants to fuck a billionaire -
wild flics -
wild fuck toys -
wild solos -
will she gag -
wives exposed -
wives exposed -
xrated asian porn -
xrated black porn -
xrated fetish porn -
xrated gay porn -
xrated hardcore porn -
xrated lesbian porn -
xrated mature porn -
xrated teen porn -
xxx adult stars -
xxx asians -
xxx casting -
xxx soul -
yank my crank -
young latina -
1000 facials -
18 blowjobs -
18 eighteen -
24 inches of pain -
8th street latinas -
abbraxa porn -
absolutely male -
action girls -
adult chat network -
adult movie matrix -
adult movie station -
adult video planet -
alexa model -
all access reality -
all amateur movies -
all anal movies -
all dat azz -
all gangbang -
all internal -
all petite -
all reality pass -
all sites access -
all teens -
amateur nest -
amateur pie -
amazing anal -
anal destruction -
anal rush -
anal suffering -
anal valley -
angels of porn -
angels of porn video -
anime illustrated -
ashton moore -
asian angels -
asian heat -
asian nudes -
asian pleasures -
asian spreads -
asian tease -
ass munchers -
ass parade -
ass traffic -
average ho -
awesome orgy -
backroom facials -
backseat bangers -
bad tushy -
bait bus -
bang boat -
bang bus -
bangkok bangers -
bang match -
barefoot maniacs -
barely legal -
big black monster dicks -
big cock sex -
big naturals -
big n plump -
big sausage pizza -
big tit patrol -
bikini hookups -
bitch mobile -
black cock party -
black cocks white sluts -
blacks on blondes -
blind date bangers -
bliss mature -
bondage planet -
boob cruise -
boob inspector -
boob squad -
bookworm bitches -
booty studio -
booty talk -
boy for boy -
boys casting -
boys first time -
brain pass -
brandy didder -
briana banks -
broadband xxx movies -
bruno b -
bus stop whores -
busty angelique -
busty beauties -
butt cam -
captain stabbin -
carol cox -
cartoon 69 -
celeb ticket -
centerfold heat -
cherry twinks -
chicks go both ways -
chick trick -
chloe jones -
chloes world -
christine young -
circle jerk boys -
circle penis -
classic mature -
club cock -
club jenna -
club titties -
college fuckfest -
creampie surprise -
cum cheeks -
cum fiesta -
cum filled panties -
cum on her face -
cum splatter -
cum swapping bitches -
curious hunks -
deputy dick -
diane poppos -
dildo dippers -
dirty aly -
dirty cheerleaders -
dirty dykes -
dirty latina maids -
dirty teen -
discount reality sites -
doctor tushy -
dorm angels -
easy elders -
ebony cafe -
ebony candy -
ebony cheeks -
ebony fantasy -
ebony head -
ebony joy -
email erotica -
euro bride tryouts -
euro fuck trip -
euro sex parties -
euro teens xxx -
exotic redheads -
exploited black teens -
exploited moms -
exposed celebrities -
face sitters -
facial whore -
fantasy match -
fantasy toons -
farmer sluts -
farm secrets -
fast times at nau -
fetish hotel -
fetish planet -
filthy fucking coeds -
first lesbian kiss -
first time auditions -
fist bang -
fisting lessons -
flirting passion -
foot babes -
foot cravings -
fort booty -
foxy brunettes -
frank wank -
freak cock -
freskish cocks -
fresh black -
fresh teens -
ftv girls -
fucked for free -
fuck her throat -
fuck spy -
gangbang lessons -
gang bang squad -
gay blind date sex -
gay chat network -
gay sugar daddy -
gay super cock -
gina lynn -
girl for girl -
girl ranch -
girls get crazy -
girls hunting girls -
glory hole station -
go go videos -
goo girls -
grande girls -
great looking ass -
group thrills -
guys in the city -
handjob adventures -
hard porn -
hentai playground -
her first anal sex -
her first ass to mouth -
her first big cock -
her first flick -
her first gang bang -
her first lesbian sex -
hidden eye -
his first gay sex -
his first huge cock -
his first threesome -
home town girls -
hood hunter -
horny spanish flies -
horny traveler -
hot asian cherry -
hot bods cool rides -
hot little package -
huge dicks little chicks -
i friends -
im live -
india uncovered -
ines cudna -
internet hookups -
interracial fuck -
interracial joy -
interracial sex fest -
ir orgy -
i spy cameltoe -
i teens -
jessica turner -
jill kelly -
jizz on my glasses -
jordan capri -
jungle girls -
just adult movies -
just asian teens -
just facials -
karas adult playground -
karas amateurs -
karas xxx -
kendra jade -
king chile -
kinky mature sluts -
kinzie kenner -
krystal steal -
latex teens -
latina kiss -
latina sex -
latina time -
latins finest -
leg sex -
leg world -
lesbine experience -
lesbian fantasies -
lesbian pink -
lesbo trick -
licka licka -
lightspeed 18 -
lightspeed girls -
lightspeed state -
little april -
little troublemaker -
ls university -
major melons -
man jizz -
mature fantasies -
mature tales -
mature xrotica -
meat holes -
melissa lincoln -
men in the nude -
messy cumshots -
met art -
midwest mandy -
mike in brazil -
mikes apartment -
milf4u -
milf challenge -
milf cruiser -
milf explorer -
milf hunter -
milf lessons -
milf searcher -
milf seeker -
milfs exposed -
milf whore -
mini boobs -
mission upskirt -
mixed flavor -
moms need cash -
monster hooters -
most erotic teens -
movie drive -
mr13 inch -
mr chews asian beaver -
mr skin -
muscle men xxx -
my first sex teacher -
my friends hot mom -
my kinky wife -
my sex tour -
nasty black sex -
nasty boys -
naughty allie -
naughty mag -
naughty office -
naughty teen club -
naughty therapy -
nicole peters -
now hiring sluts -
nude beach house -
nude celebs revue -
oh boys -
older babes -
older ladies -
old tarts -
oral addiction -
ox pass -
panty peeks -
pee lover -
perfect orgy -
perfect toes -
peter north -
peters cumshots -
petite latinas -
pink candy shavers -
piss mops -
please bang my wife -
porn stud search -
pregnant babes -
pregnant bang -
private gold -
public amateurs -
public nudity -
public thongs -
pump that ass -
rachel 18 -
ram rod -
rap video auditions -
rate my tranny -
real butts -
reality porn pass -
redhair sex -
red hot pornstars -
retro mature -
roger celeb -
ronni tuscadero -
round and brown -
rub and tug -
ryans beach house -
scoreland -
score videos -
secret celeb -
sergeant sodomy -
sex2go -
sex affair -
sex illustrated -
sex spy -
sexy and petite -
shaggon wagon -
shelby bell -
shocking cocks -
sick insertions -
silky blondes -
simply gay -
sinful teachers -
size genetics -
slam that ass -
slut bus -
slut movies -
slut toons -
so cal coeds -
spoiled slut -
spring thomas -
spy cams -
stroke jobs -
stud toons -
sugar mamas -
super bush -
supermarket whores -