So I thought I’d jump back in by discussing the recent NYC same-sex marriage case Hernandez v. Robles. Before we get into a summary of the decision it is worth noting the implications of the decision. The defendant in the case was the City Clerk of the City of New York, and hence it was essentially up to New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg to decide whether to appeal the ruling. [For what it’s worth disclaimer: I am currently employed by New York City in a capacity in no way related to this case]. When the decision came out on Friday there was some speculation that Mayor Bloomberg might not appeal, thus allowing the clerk to issue marriage licenses within the next 30 days. Bloomberg quickly ended speculation yesterday by announcing that while he supported same-sex marriage--and would work to get legislation for it passed in Albany if the lower court ruling was struck down--he was going to appeal the decision so as to get a definite ruling from the state’s highest court as soon as possible. He also said that he would seek to expedite the appeal directly to the highest court (essentially skipping a review by an intermediate appellate court). There were no disagreements as to the facts in this case; it was entirely a question of law, so there is little consequence to this decision other than to speed up the process of getting the state’s highest court to examine the issue. I figure we should find out soon whether the appeal is indeed expedited. In the meantime, I thought I would summarize the court’s decision anyway below and in a subsequent post weigh in with my own opinions and analysis on some of the controversial issues involved.
Justice Ling-Cohan wrote a 62 page opinion (pdf) which is well worth reading for those who are interested and have the time, but for those who would like a summary I offer the following with the same outline used by her. Throughout I will freely quote from the opinion omitting internal citations.
I. Background
As noted earlier the facts are not in dispute and are fairly straightforward. Five committed same-sex couples sought marriage licenses from the City Clerk of the City of New York. They were denied and given copies of letters from the city’s Law Department and from the Attorney General of New York both offering the opinion that New York State Law does not currently allow same-sex marriage. (The AG’s letter did note that there were serious constitutional questions about such exclusion that were best resolved by the courts). They were also given some information about New York City's Domestic Partnership registration program.
II. Discussion
A. Disadvantages Suffered by Plaintiff Couples and their Children
It's best here to just quote directly from the opinion:
Marriage provides an extensive legal structure that protects the couple and any children. It is not disputed, for example, that among many other disadvantages, plaintiff couples may not own property by the entireties; file joint state income tax returns; obtain health insurance through a partner's coverage; obtain joint liability or homeowner's insurance; collect from a partner's pension benefits; have one partner of the two-women couples be the legal parent of the other partner's artificially inseminated child, without the expense of an adoption proceeding; invoke the spousal evidentiary privilege; recover damages for an injury to, or the wrongful death of, a partner; have the right to make important medical decisions for a partner in emergencies; inherit from a deceased partner's intestate estate; or determine a partner's funeral and burial arrangements...
….One of the most important benefits of marriage is the securing of the bonds between parents and children and the protection of children raised in the family. For example, the children of parents in same-sex relationships are not necessarily covered by the statutory duty of support. Under State law, when a couple elects to conceive a child through donor insemination, only the married couple can ensure that at birth the child has an automatic legal parent-child relationship with each, upon their written consent.
Marriage also imposes reciprocal responsibilities on spouses, which serve to protect the family, including the legal requirement that spouses provide each other with financial support or face legal redress in certain circumstances, such as if one spouse is a recipient of public assistance. Spouses, but not unmarried couples, are permitted to take out insurance policies on each other....
...Furthermore, plaintiff couples and their children suffer numerous intangible burdens as the result of being relegated to a caste-determined status that is different from that of families in which the adult couple has been allowed to marry.
B. New York’s Domestic Relations Law (DRL)
There were two important points discussed in the section. First of all, the court agreed with the Attorney General’s opinion that while the state DRL does not expressly forbid same-sex marriage one can infer from the history and gendered language of the law that the legislature did not intend to authorize such marriages.
The second issue was whether a decision of a higher court (in Matter of Cooper) had settled the question facing this court. Once again the court agreed with the AG opinion that the previous case did not really address the issue of a right to marry (it concerned instead whether the surviving partner of an unmarried same-sex couple had to be treated as a surviving “spouse”). The court also provided a few other reasons for why Matter of Cooper was not too relevant for addressing the current issue before the court. Those concerns generally dealt with the Cooper court’s reliance on a federal case (from Minnesota in 1971) called Baker v. Nelson which found no federal constitutional problem in prohibiting same-sex marriage. The court found Baker v. Nelson to be of little value because (1) The state constitution could offer more protection than the federal constitution and (2) even at the federal level cases subsequent to Baker v. Nelson has little precedential value because of subsequent US Supreme Court doctrine.
C. Plaintiffs Raise State Constitutional Due Process and Equal Protection Claims
The court noted that even when the language in the New York State Constitution was identical to language in the federal constitution, it could provide (and has provided) more protection. It then dealt with the two issues separately.
1. The Restriction on Same-Sex Marriage Violates Fundamental Due Process Protections.
Like the US Constitution, the NY Constitution guarantees that “[n]o person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of the law” and it is well established that the right of liberty includes the right to marry. The opinion looked at several cases discussing this right to liberty and the broad principles involved of an individual making their own choices in certain matters. The court looked at this more closely in...
a. The Due Process Right to Liberty Protects the Right to Marry
Again let me turn to quoting the decision (Note that the Court of Appeals is New York State’s highest court and People v. Onofre was a 1980 sodomy case):
New York courts have analyzed the liberty interest at issue in terms that recognize and embrace the broader principles at stake. The Court of Appeals, in holding unconstitutional New York's consensual sodomy prohibition, did not define the nature of the claim with such specificity as to obscure the real right at stake (such as, for example, defining the claim as a fundamental right to engage in non-marital oral sodomy in an automobile parked on a city street). People v. Onofre. Instead, the Court's review of the constitutional deprivation focused on the individual's broader liberty interest, a fundamental right of personal decision extending to non-marital sexual intimacy.
Justice Ling-Cohan returned to the issue of how specific or broad to define the right to marriage later in (II)(C)(1)(d).
b. Defining the Protected Marriage Rights
The court then noted the established right to marry covers not only who may marry, but the right to choose whom one may marry. It is this right that is being infringed in the current case. That, for example, was one of the problems with laws prohibiting interracial marriage. Nobody was forbidden from getting married by such laws, but they were forbidden from making certain choices as to whom to marry. Thus the court subjected this case to strict scrutiny. That is at this point it was up to the state to provide a compelling interest for denying these couples marriage licenses.
c. No Compelling State Interests Require A Bar on Same-Sex Marriage
The court looked at the two interest raised by the defense:
i. The State Interest In Keeping the Traditional Definition of Marriage
The court noted that if tradition alone were even a legitimate state interest to uphold a law, there would still be a marital rape exception. There would still be laws prohibiting sodomy. If one instead looks at the reasons for the tradition, it may be argued that marriage is uniquely tied to the procreation and rearing of children. The court responded,
However, it is also indisputable that the DRL does not bar women who are past child-bearing age to marry, and that the long-term union of a man and a woman is no longer the only familial context for raising children.
It noted how a number of the plaintiffs were raising children. More importantly, there was no argument for how allowing same-sex couples to marry would harm the marital arrangements of any other couple. The court continued,
Excluding same-sex couples from marrying may, in fact, undermine the State’s interest in providing optimal environments for child-rearing, in that children of those families are then not afforded the same legal, financial and health benefits that children of married couples receive.
Finally the court noted that the concept of marriage has evolved, an issue it dealt with later in (II)(D)
ii. Ensuring Consistency with Federal Law and Other States As a State Interest
The court fairly quickly dismissed this claim as being even a legitimate interest. For one thing the same-sex couples (and anybody else) are no worse off if their marriage isn’t recognized elsewhere. Furthermore, “an elaborate body of comity law already exists nationwide to deal with inconsistency in State laws regarding marriage.”
d. Defendant’s Argument That Plaintiffs Must Establish A Fundamental Right to Same-Sex Marriage is Not Persuasive
Here the court returned to the argument that the liberty interest at state was not so much a right to marry, but a right to same-sex marriage. The court noted that this type of thinking (defining the issue with such specificity as to obscure the principles involved) was just the type of thinking criticized by the US Supreme Court in Lawrence when it overturned Bowers. (Federal cases dealing with sodomy). Likewise there was no fundamental right to interracial marriage at the time of Perez (a 1948 California case) or Loving (a 1967 Federal case), or fundamental right of inmates to marry at the time of Turner, etc.
The court further noted in regards to the argument that same-sex marriage is not marriage because that’s not what marriage has been:
Marriage is no more limited by the historical exclusion of same-sex marriage than it was limited by the exclusion of interracial marriage, the legal doctrine of coverture, the pre-1967 restrictions on remarriage following divorce in New York, longstanding restrictions on divorce, or the “marital exemption” to the crime of rape.
The court spent some time discussing each of these examples of marriage changing from what it had traditionally been.
2. Plaintiffs’ Claim That the Restriction on Same-Sex Marriage Violates Equal Protection.
The court sounded skeptical of the sex-based equal protection argument. Justice Ling-Cohan noted that the law treats men and women equally and while this could still be a problem if there were discriminatory intent, but
Here, however, there is no evidence that the Legislature had a specific intent to bar same-sex marriage. Moreover, with the gradual equalization of the rights of men and women in marriage, it cannot be readily argued that the requirement that a married couple consist of a man and a woman is intended to, or does, reinforce traditional sex roles.
The court concluded, though, that it need not address this argument as it “indisputably” discriminated against the couples on the basis of sexual orientation. And regardless of whether that would subject the law to higher scrutiny the state had failed to provide even a legitimate state interest.
D. New York's Evolving Commitment to Protect and Respect Same-Sex Relationships
Justice Ling-Cohan argued that the change being made in this decision was consistent not only with the way marriage was evolving, but with the way New York’s attitude toward respecting and protecting same-sex relationships was changing.
III. Remedy
The court first noted that it is indeed the court’s role to rule on challenges to a statute’s constitutionality. As for the actual remedy, there were two possibilities. The court could either strike down the marriage laws, or read them gender neutrally. The latter seemed the more natural choice, and in fact, past constitutional violations of the DRL have been remedied by reading words in a gender-neutral manner. That was what the court would order here.
IV. Summary
The court concluded with some words regarding the importance of marriage and the importance of being able to choose our spouse without governmental interference.
[some typos corrected]
There's a lot to be said about this case, but what strikes me the most is how, at each turn, the lifting of some restriction (whether by courts or by the legislature) is read to be a support to the right to have the courts lift more restrictions. If you've been in the culture wars for a few decades, or know the history of it, you recognize each of these turns. It starts with liberalizing divorce laws. It proceeds to social acceptance (then social encouragement) of remarriage, single parenthood, surrogacy, etc. Any compromise designed to leave some privacy in the matter of marriage decisions is re-interpreted to indicate that government has no interest (if you don't regulate everything, then you can't regulate any of it).
Interestingly, we were also told that only silly people would think that allowing no fault divorce would have an effect on the marriages of those not getting divorced. Apart from the many (extremely ill) social effects of easy divorce, now we can add changing the very definition of marriage to include same-sex couples to the list of unintended consequences of changing the divorce laws. Looks like, if anything, pro-family groups were understated in their predictions.
And, just as with marriage laws, you see the same pattern as with sodomy laws. Family groups had no interest in sending policemen into people's bedrooms to check if sodomy was occuring (indeed, a principle arguement against those laws was that they were not enforced). Liberal critics argued that there was no tangible harm to removing sodomy laws from the books. Conservatives countered (perhaps remembering the divorce wars) that lots of tangible harm was predictable, including same-sex marriage. Liberals scoffed - what a silly thing to think! Slippery slopedom! Not at all likely!
And here we are. Only rarely has being absolutely correct in one's predicitions felt so horrible.
So, you and I have discussed in the past whether altering the definition of marriage to include same-sex pairings would lead to polygamy (among other things). You've argued that there's no certainty it would. I happily concede. I am not 100% certain of future social developments. You make a great case for why polygamy shouldn't be permitted, and I'll be quoting you heavily when we eventually fight this one out.
But I'd like to know, why, given the history of divorce law and sodomy law, and the court's clever choice to define the issue as a general matter of liberty and to minimize any differences between the virtual, it isn't a *likely* result? Oh, it's not going to happen tomorrow - let's give it a good 40 years, just about the time it took the divorce and sodomy laws to change so utterly. We can't argue much on the liberty interest; after all, if what you want isn't in the constitution, you just back up and back up until you get to a concept wide enough to encompass what you want to legalize - you can do that with almost any issue. From your summary of the case, I think the legal basis is already there. The only remaining issues are the social science arguments that the government will try to use to defend the restriction and the social acceptance.
But, I don't think this means that you can't still call for gay marriage with a glad heart. There are lots of cases where there's some unfortunate unintended consequence of changing the law. If people are informed of them up front, they can judge whether the good outweighs the bad (and in this case I think your side has some solid arguments -- not, of course, that I would agree with them).
I'd just like someone to admit that, in the matter of predicting social outcomes, the pro-family groups have been Cassandra, not Chicken Little, and that chances are we're right again.
Posted by: M | February 07, 2005 at 01:37 AM
Interestingly, we were also told that only silly people would think that allowing no fault divorce would have an effect on the marriages of those not getting divorced.
I believe whoever told you that was the silly one. You are changing the terms under which any and all marriages can end. That could certainly have a consequence on the dynamics within any and all marriages.
we can add changing the very definition of marriage to include same-sex couples to the list of unintended consequences of changing the divorce laws
I wouldn't call same-sex marriage a consequence of the changed divorce laws. It is certainly conceivable to have same-sex marriage with the former divorce laws, and likewise it is possible to have the changed divorce laws without same-sex marriage. The reference to divorce was just one of many examples of how marriage has changed. There were many others like the end of coverture and the end of the marital rape exception that were particularly relevant as they concerned gender roles within marriage. I would say, though, that any change toward gender-neutrality in the divorce law would make same-sex marriage more likely. For example, a law that made men, but not women, liable for alimony, or a law that gave the wife presumptative custody would be much more difficult to reconcile with same-sex marriage. The more gender-neutral the marriage laws are the more difficult it is to justify gender requirements within marriage.
And, just as with marriage laws, you see the same pattern as with sodomy laws.
Again I would say that anyone who said decriminalizing sodomy would have no impact whatsoever on the same-sex marriage debate was silly. That does not necessarily mean that same-sex marriage is an inevitable consequence of removing sodomy laws. Rather you have removed one critical justification for prohibiting same-sex marriage. It is no coincidence that the Supreme Court struck down interracial marriage prohibitions in Loving a mere four years after it struck down the disparate penalities for interracial cohabitation in McLaughlin. In the case of interracial marriage prohibitions it seemed that often those prohibitions were intended to prevent interracial sex. I still don't understand whether certain groups today supported sodomy laws to prevent same-sex marriage or whether they support same-sex marriage prohibitions because they believe sodomy is wrong. In a similar fashion I believe that decriminalizing adultery will make it more difficult (but not impossible) to prevent polygamy. I believe, though, that there are also independent reasons to support the criminialization of adultery as well as independent reasons to prohibit polygamy.
But I'd like to know, why, given the history of divorce law and sodomy law, and the court's clever choice to define the issue as a general matter of liberty and to minimize any differences between the virtual, [the legalization of polygamy] isn't a *likely* result?
First let me point out that if polygamy became legal it would not be only the anti SSM groups that could claim to be Cassandras, but also those that argued against interracial marriage. One could also argue that such a result was a consequence of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act that called for accomodating religious practice without a good reason for doing otherwise. Still, regardless of who could take credit for the prophecy, the question remains is it likely. I do not think so. For one thing I think there are compelling independent reasons to prohibit polygamy and the case for it is rather weak. If there weren't compelling reasons to prohibit it then the argument, "But it will lead to polygamy" wouldn't really matter. The response would be "So what?" More importantly, the trend in Western society is away from polygamy not toward it. Same-sex marriage, interracial marriage, and interfaith marriage can all be thought of as natural consequences of the trend to treat people as distinct individuals without regards to certain types of classifications. The remedy in the Hernandez case was nothing new. Read the statute gender neutrally. Polygamy made sense when the male was the only legal individual. Regardless of how many wives he had there wass but one adult male in any family. All families were equal (not that equality was a big goal). With equal rights for women any polygamous household would today have at least three adults with full rights. This presents many complications that had not existed in the past. To allow polygamy would require a complete rewriting of numerous laws (it could be done, but it would be difficult). Allowing same-sex marriage only required laws to be read gender-neutrally which they generally were already.
If people are informed of them up front, they can judge whether the good outweighs the bad
Just by weighing the bad consequences of polygamy, though, one is describing reasons against it and hence state interests that will make it less likely. That, of course, assumes the reasons are more detailed than "It's just wrong."
Posted by: Galois | February 07, 2005 at 05:24 PM
Typo patrol - I think the middle "t" in "marital rate exception" ought be a "p."
Welcome back!
Posted by: Ampersand | February 07, 2005 at 06:33 PM
Thanks on both counts. You are correct. The judge never discussed marital rates.
Posted by: Galois | February 07, 2005 at 07:23 PM
Liberal critics argued that there was no tangible harm to removing sodomy laws from the books. Conservatives countered (perhaps remembering the divorce wars) that lots of tangible harm was predictable, including same-sex marriage.
I'm not so sure this is exactly true on two fronts. First, many liberal critics were in fact openly agreeing that removing sodomy laws from the books it would lead to gay marriage. The difference between the arguments that I saw was who felt that 'gay marriage' was a harm. If you felt it was a harm, then of course striking the law was an inadvisable thing. Of course, if you supported gay marriage, then it was indeed a good outcome from striking the laws. I'm not sure what actual harm (if we put aside gay marriage) can be shown to have come from striking the sodomy laws, either the state-by-state striking of those laws over the last decades or the final demise with the supreme court ruling
Secondly, I'm not sure it can be shown that gay marriage is a natural consequence of the striking sodomy rulings (state or Supreme Court ruling). Though I will be the first to admit (and did) that sodomy laws, even unenforced, were a impediment in many cases to same-sex marriage (or for that matter anti-discrimnation laws, gay adoption, GLBTs holding office in some states, etc, etc) and that the striking of them lifted that impediment. It's why I celebrated it with gusto.
So the difference was, I believe, not that liberal critics felt it wouldn't lead to gay marriage (or more acceptance of gays, etc) and conservatives did, it was who felt that those consequences were good and who thought they were a harm.
I stand firmly that the consequences of striking the sodomy laws over the years in the states and finally in Lawrence have been great goods (marriage equality, social acceptence, anti-discrimination laws and so on)
Posted by: Trey | February 07, 2005 at 07:53 PM
"Polygamy made sense when the male was the only legal individual."
I would dispute this. Most of the polyamorous partners I know involve a primary couple, typically with the female having more secondary partners than the male. While I do see how polygamy could have been sex-role enforcing in the past, I would argue that it isn't a necessary component of the arrangement.
Posted by: Siv Volk | February 08, 2005 at 08:28 PM
Siv,
You don't dispute me, you misunderstand me. I am not claiming either (a) most polyamorous arrangements today consist of one male or (b) polygamy enforces sex-roles. What I am saying is that in the past when polygamy arrangements consisted of one male and that male was the only full citizen from the family it was easier to accomodate polygamy within the laws of society. Today, however, regardless of what sex the partners in a polygamous are, there are legal complications because each one of them is a full standing legal citizen. (To give just one example, in the event a spouse is incapacitated and unable to make his or her own medical decisions, which spouse has the authority to make them?). It is considerations like these which present obstacles to polygamy today that did not exist in the past.
Compare this with same-sex marriage which makes more sense today than it did in the past because the roles within a marriage are no longer gender defined.
Posted by: Galois | February 08, 2005 at 09:15 PM
caldo ritirarsi papy
caldo sborrate in faccia
caldo schioccare madre
caldo schizzate di figa
caldo scure
caldo segretaria anale fotti
caldo segretaria fotti
caldo segretaria masturbate
caldo segretaria schizzate di figa
caldo segretaria strip
caldo selvaggio vergine
caldo sensazione nubile
caldo sentimentale castra
caldo sentimento castra
caldo sentimento madre
caldo snelle
caldo soprannaturale castra
caldo spavaldo castra
caldo spaventoso figlio
caldo strano castra
caldo strano papy
caldo stravagante padre
caldo stravagantemente mamma
caldo studentessa castra
caldo stupefacente donna
caldo sublime estreme
caldo superpoppe sex
caldo taglio tenere
caldo tedesco merda
caldo tedesco sudore
caldo timido da dietro
caldo timido topless
caldo timoroso piedi
caldo ubriache
caldo vampiro
caldo vergognoso culto
caldo zoccoleborghesi azione
caliente
Posted by: vch | August 26, 2006 at 12:01 PM
housewife bangers -
huge boobs galore -
insane cock brothas -
just facials -
latin adultery -
little april -
little summer -
met art -
milf seeker -
milton twins -
more gonzo -
my first sex teacher -
my friends hot mom -
my naughty latin maid -
my sex tour -
my sisters hot friend -
naughty allie -
naughty america vip -
naughty bookworms -
naughty drive thru -
naughty julie -
naughty office -
neighbor affair -
orgy sex parties -
porn stud search -
prime cups -
rectal rooter -
seduced by a cougar -
she got pimped -
simpson twins -
so cal coeds -
sperm swap -
squirt hunter -
tamed teens -
teen brazil -
teens for cash -
teen topanga -
texas twins -
trixie teen -
twinks for cash -
virgin teen lesbians -
wild fuck toys -
his first gay sex -
all internal -
american daydreams -
asian 1on1 -
asian parade -
ass masterpiece -
ass traffic -
backseat bangers -
bang boat -
black cocks white sluts -
boob exam scam -
bookworm bitches -
border bangers -
bubble butts galore -
college fuckfest -
college wild parties -
couples seduce teens -
diary of a milf -
dirty latina maids -
fast times at nau -
first time swallows -
ftv girls -
gangbang squad -
gay blind date sex -
gay college sex parties -
give me pink -
her first anal sex -
her first big cock -
her first dp -
her first lesbian sex -
his first facial -
his first gay sex -
his first huge cock -
hot campus teens -
housewife 1on1 -
housewife bangers -
huge boobs galore -
insane cock brothas -
just facials -
latin adultery -
little april -
little summer -
met art -
milf seeker -
milton twins -
more gonzo -
my first sex teacher -
my friends hot mom -
my naughty latin maid -
my sex tour -
my sisters hot friend -
naughty allie -
naughty america vip -
naughty bookworms -
naughty drive thru -
naughty julie -
naughty office -
neighbor affair -
orgy sex parties -
porn stud search -
prime cups -
rectal rooter -
seduced by a cougar -
she got pimped -
simpson twins -
so cal coeds -
sperm swap -
squirt hunter -
tamed teens -
teen brazil -
teens for cash -
teen topanga -
texas twins -
trixie teen -
twinks for cash -
virgin teen lesbians -
wild fuck toys -
his first huge cock -
all internal -
american daydreams -
asian 1on1 -
asian parade -
ass masterpiece -
ass traffic -
backseat bangers -
bang boat -
black cocks white sluts -
boob exam scam -
bookworm bitches -
border bangers -
bubble butts galore -
college fuckfest -
college wild parties -
couples seduce teens -
diary of a milf -
dirty latina maids -
fast times at nau -
first time swallows -
ftv girls -
gangbang squad -
gay blind date sex -
gay college sex parties -
give me pink -
her first anal sex -
her first big cock -
her first dp -
her first lesbian sex -
his first facial -
his first gay sex -
his first huge cock -
hot campus teens -
housewife 1on1 -
housewife bangers -
huge boobs galore -
insane cock brothas -
just facials -
latin adultery -
little april -
little summer -
met art -
milf seeker -
milton twins -
more gonzo -
my first sex teacher -
my friends hot mom -
my naughty latin maid -
my sex tour -
my sisters hot friend -
naughty allie -
naughty america vip -
naughty bookworms -
naughty drive thru -
naughty julie -
naughty office -
neighbor affair -
orgy sex parties -
porn stud search -
prime cups -
rectal rooter -
seduced by a cougar -
she got pimped -
simpson twins -
so cal coeds -
sperm swap -
squirt hunter -
tamed teens -
teen brazil -
teens for cash -
teen topanga -
texas twins -
trixie teen -
twinks for cash -
virgin teen lesbians -
wild fuck toys -
housewife bangers -
all internal -
american daydreams -
asian 1on1 -
asian parade -
ass masterpiece -
ass traffic -
backseat bangers -
bang boat -
black cocks white sluts -
boob exam scam -
bookworm bitches -
border bangers -
bubble butts galore -
college fuckfest -
college wild parties -
couples seduce teens -
diary of a milf -
dirty latina maids -
fast times at nau -
first time swallows -
ftv girls -
gangbang squad -
gay blind date sex -
gay college sex parties -
give me pink -
her first anal sex -
her first big cock -
her first dp -
her first lesbian sex -
his first facial -
his first gay sex -
his first huge cock -
hot campus teens -
housewife 1on1 -
housewife bangers -
huge boobs galore -
insane cock brothas -
just facials -
latin adultery -
little april -
little summer -
met art -
milf seeker -
milton twins -
more gonzo -
my first sex teacher -
my friends hot mom -
my naughty latin maid -
my sex tour -
my sisters hot friend -
naughty allie -
naughty america vip -
naughty bookworms -
naughty drive thru -
naughty julie -
naughty office -
neighbor affair -
orgy sex parties -
porn stud search -
prime cups -
rectal rooter -
seduced by a cougar -
she got pimped -
simpson twins -
so cal coeds -
sperm swap -
squirt hunter -
tamed teens -
teen brazil -
teens for cash -
teen topanga -
texas twins -
trixie teen -
twinks for cash -
virgin teen lesbians -
wild fuck toys -
huge boobs galore -
all internal -
american daydreams -
asian 1on1 -
asian parade -
ass masterpiece -
ass traffic -
backseat bangers -
bang boat -
black cocks white sluts -
boob exam scam -
bookworm bitches -
border bangers -
bubble butts galore -
college fuckfest -
college wild parties -
couples seduce teens -
diary of a milf -
dirty latina maids -
fast times at nau -
first time swallows -
ftv girls -
gangbang squad -
gay blind date sex -
gay college sex parties -
give me pink -
her first anal sex -
her first big cock -
her first dp -
her first lesbian sex -
his first facial -
his first gay sex -
his first huge cock -
hot campus teens -
housewife 1on1 -
housewife bangers -
huge boobs galore -
insane cock brothas -
just facials -
latin adultery -
little april -
little summer -
met art -
milf seeker -
milton twins -
more gonzo -
my first sex teacher -
my friends hot mom -
my naughty latin maid -
my sex tour -
my sisters hot friend -
naughty allie -
naughty america vip -
naughty bookworms -
naughty drive thru -
naughty julie -
naughty office -
neighbor affair -
orgy sex parties -
porn stud search -
prime cups -
rectal rooter -
seduced by a cougar -
she got pimped -
simpson twins -
so cal coeds -
sperm swap -
squirt hunter -
tamed teens -
teen brazil -
teens for cash -
teen topanga -
texas twins -
trixie teen -
twinks for cash -
virgin teen lesbians -
wild fuck toys -
insane cock brothas -
all internal -
american daydreams -
asian 1on1 -
asian parade -
ass masterpiece -
ass traffic -
backseat bangers -
bang boat -
black cocks white sluts -
boob exam scam -
bookworm bitches -
border bangers -
bubble butts galore -
college fuckfest -
college wild parties -
couples seduce teens -
diary of a milf -
dirty latina maids -
fast times at nau -
first time swallows -
ftv girls -
gangbang squad -
gay blind date sex -
gay college sex parties -
give me pink -
her first anal sex -
her first big cock -
her first dp -
her first lesbian sex -
his first facial -
his first gay sex -
his first huge cock -
hot campus teens -
housewife 1on1 -
housewife bangers -
huge boobs galore -
insane cock brothas -
just facials -
latin adultery -
little april -
little summer -
met art -
milf seeker -
milton twins -
more gonzo -
my first sex teacher -
my friends hot mom -
my naughty latin maid -
my sex tour -
my sisters hot friend -
naughty allie -
naughty america vip -
naughty bookworms -
naughty drive thru -
naughty julie -
naughty office -
neighbor affair -
orgy sex parties -
porn stud search -
prime cups -
rectal rooter -
seduced by a cougar -
she got pimped -
simpson twins -
so cal coeds -
sperm swap -
squirt hunter -
tamed teens -
teen brazil -
teens for cash -
teen topanga -
texas twins -
trixie teen -
twinks for cash -
virgin teen lesbians -
wild fuck toys -
just facials -
all internal -
american daydreams -
asian 1on1 -
asian parade -
ass masterpiece -
ass traffic -
backseat bangers -
bang boat -
black cocks white sluts -
boob exam scam -
bookworm bitches -
border bangers -
bubble butts galore -
college fuckfest -
college wild parties -
couples seduce teens -
diary of a milf -
dirty latina maids -
fast times at nau -
first time swallows -
ftv girls -
gangbang squad -
gay blind date sex -
gay college sex parties -
give me pink -
her first anal sex -
her first big cock -
her first dp -
her first lesbian sex -
his first facial -
his first gay sex -
his first huge cock -
hot campus teens -
housewife 1on1 -
housewife bangers -
huge boobs galore -
insane cock brothas -
just facials -
latin adultery -
little april -
little summer -
met art -
milf seeker -
milton twins -
more gonzo -
my first sex teacher -
my friends hot mom -
my naughty latin maid -
my sex tour -
my sisters hot friend -
naughty allie -
naughty america vip -
naughty bookworms -
naughty drive thru -
naughty julie -
naughty office -
neighbor affair -
orgy sex parties -
porn stud search -
prime cups -
rectal rooter -
seduced by a cougar -
she got pimped -
simpson twins -
so cal coeds -
sperm swap -
squirt hunter -
tamed teens -
teen brazil -
teens for cash -
teen topanga -
texas twins -
trixie teen -
twinks for cash -
virgin teen lesbians -
wild fuck toys -
milf seeker -
all internal -
american daydreams -
asian 1on1 -
asian parade -
ass masterpiece -
ass traffic -
backseat bangers -
bang boat -
black cocks white sluts -
boob exam scam -
bookworm bitches -
border bangers -
bubble butts galore -
college fuckfest -
college wild parties -
couples seduce teens -
diary of a milf -
dirty latina maids -
fast times at nau -
first time swallows -
ftv girls -
gangbang squad -
gay blind date sex -
gay college sex parties -
give me pink -
her first anal sex -
her first big cock -
her first dp -
her first lesbian sex -
his first facial -
his first gay sex -
his first huge cock -
hot campus teens -
housewife 1on1 -
housewife bangers -
huge boobs galore -
insane cock brothas -
just facials -
latin adultery -
little april -
little summer -
met art -
milf seeker -
milton twins -
more gonzo -
my first sex teacher -
my friends hot mom -
my naughty latin maid -
my sex tour -
my sisters hot friend -
naughty allie -
naughty america vip -
naughty bookworms -
naughty drive thru -
naughty julie -
naughty office -
neighbor affair -
orgy sex parties -
porn stud search -
prime cups -
rectal rooter -
seduced by a cougar -
she got pimped -
simpson twins -
so cal coeds -
sperm swap -
squirt hunter -
tamed teens -
teen brazil -
teens for cash -
teen topanga -
texas twins -
trixie teen -
twinks for cash -
virgin teen lesbians -
wild fuck toys -
porn stud search -
all internal -
american daydreams -
asian 1on1 -
asian parade -
ass masterpiece -
ass traffic -
backseat bangers -
bang boat -
black cocks white sluts -
boob exam scam -
bookworm bitches -
border bangers -
bubble butts galore -
college fuckfest -
college wild parties -
couples seduce teens -
diary of a milf -
dirty latina maids -
fast times at nau -
first time swallows -
ftv girls -
gangbang squad -
gay blind date sex -
gay college sex parties -
give me pink -
her first anal sex -
her first big cock -
her first dp -
her first lesbian sex -
his first facial -
his first gay sex -
his first huge cock -
hot campus teens -
housewife 1on1 -
housewife bangers -
huge boobs galore -
insane cock brothas -
just facials -
latin adultery -
little april -
little summer -
met art -
milf seeker -
milton twins -
more gonzo -
Posted by: richard | November 02, 2007 at 02:16 AM
Hi all!
I want to cure his daughter
[url=http://haesetverg.bufsiz.jp/02/sitemap.html]Sitemap of hvac mega store patricks supply[/url]
[url=http://haesetverg.bufsiz.jp/03/sitemap.html]Sitemap of hvac parts keller tx[/url]
[url=http://slutbagti.biroudo.jp/sitemap.html]Sitemap of 14x30 hvac filters[/url]
We will be glad to see you
Posted by: Erysletantall | August 23, 2011 at 03:08 AM