Massachusetts court rules ban on gay marriage unconstitutional

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Well, then!

So what does this do to Prop 22 in California, then, or whatever that homophobic piece of proposition trash was numbered?

― donut bitch (donut), Tuesday, 18 November 2003 15:41 (twenty-one years ago)

granted, this does not mean gay marriages for all in the U.S., but it's, um, a step in a not-bad direction one would hope.

― donut bitch (donut), Tuesday, 18 November 2003 15:44 (twenty-one years ago)

hey america, stay homophobic please...the gay tourists are good for Canada's economy.

― Huckleberry Mann (Horace Mann), Tuesday, 18 November 2003 15:46 (twenty-one years ago)

no worries, horace... surely Bush will hold hands and unite with your noble cause.

― donut bitch (donut), Tuesday, 18 November 2003 15:47 (twenty-one years ago)

He's not gonna hold hands with Horace, that's totally gay.

― NA (Nick A.), Tuesday, 18 November 2003 15:48 (twenty-one years ago)

what if held hands, but used our free hands to punch each other?

― Huckleberry Mann (Horace Mann), Tuesday, 18 November 2003 15:49 (twenty-one years ago)

Bush will agree to do a jive handshake with Horace, but only if hand-to-hand contact is limited to 3 seconds or less.

― NA (Nick A.), Tuesday, 18 November 2003 15:50 (twenty-one years ago)

Nope. won't work. You can't prove you're not gay even if you have no hands, you know.

OK, no offense Horace, but I kinda wanted to get a serious discussion out of this for once. What does this all exactly mean.. what do you guys forecast here... thoughts?

― donut bitch (donut), Tuesday, 18 November 2003 15:53 (twenty-one years ago)

(and no offense to NA meant either)

― donut bitch (donut), Tuesday, 18 November 2003 15:54 (twenty-one years ago)

It means I can get married in Massachusetts if I feel so inclined.

― Jeanne Fury (Jeanne Fury), Tuesday, 18 November 2003 15:55 (twenty-one years ago)

Well, presumably it could mean that it goes to the Supreme Court next (I'm still waiting for the story to load up). Though it seems the Court's been stepping back a bit from state decisions. As it is, this key (and the story has now loaded):

The federal government's Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), while not an outright ban on gay marriage, declares that states are not required to recognize a same-sex marriage performed in another state.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 18 November 2003 15:55 (twenty-one years ago)

Which is a load of bs. It means I'd be considered a married woman in Massachusetts but not in New York. Because gay and non-gay operate in two different dimensions.

― Jeanne Fury (Jeanne Fury), Tuesday, 18 November 2003 15:59 (twenty-one years ago)

Okay, sorry. I just see this as such a ridiculous issue and another opportunity for Canadians to gloat about their moral superiority.
I have a really hard time understanding homophobia, and particulary the idea that gay marriage is a threat to "traditional" marriages, esp in the light of:

The National Domestic Violence Hotline has received more than 700,000 calls for assistance since February 1996. – National Domestic Violence Hotline,
December 2001

Nearly one-third of American women (31 percent) report being physically or sexually abused by a husband or boyfriend at some point in their lives.
–Commonwealth Fund survey, 1998

While women are less likely than men to be victims of violent crimes overall, women are 5 to 8 times more likely than men to be victimized by an
intimate partner. – Violence by Intimates: Analysis of Data on Crimes by Current or Former Spouses, Boyfriends, and Girlfriends, U.S. Department of Justice,
March, 1998

and a whole lot more threats to "traditional" marriage found at: http://www.ndvh.org/dvInfo.html#stats

― Huckleberry Mann (Horace Mann), Tuesday, 18 November 2003 16:00 (twenty-one years ago)

Because gay and non-gay operate in two different dimensions.

This is the best concept EVER. And cunnilingus makes you travel through TIME!

― teeny (teeny), Tuesday, 18 November 2003 16:01 (twenty-one years ago)

shit, well then im buzz aldrin.

― Chris B. Sure (Chris V), Tuesday, 18 November 2003 16:02 (twenty-one years ago)

shit, well then im buzz aldrin.

Uuuuhhhh... Chris, there may be a REASON that yer wife ain't conceivin' then!

― Citizen Kate (kate), Tuesday, 18 November 2003 16:04 (twenty-one years ago)

;)

― Chris B. Sure (Chris V), Tuesday, 18 November 2003 16:04 (twenty-one years ago)

Buzz Aldrin traveled through SPACE not TIME, Chris...I think you're doing it wrong.

― Huckleberry Mann (Horace Mann), Tuesday, 18 November 2003 16:05 (twenty-one years ago)

yeah i realized that after i posted. i dumb.

― Chris B. Sure (Chris V), Tuesday, 18 November 2003 16:07 (twenty-one years ago)

"man travels through time and impregnates wife with his own tongue!"

― Citizen Kate (kate), Tuesday, 18 November 2003 16:08 (twenty-one years ago)

Timecop, starring JC Van-D

― Huckleberry Mann (Horace Mann), Tuesday, 18 November 2003 16:08 (twenty-one years ago)

Surely you meant Jean-Claude VD?

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Tuesday, 18 November 2003 16:11 (twenty-one years ago)

(sorry Donut)

― Huckleberry Mann (Horace Mann), Tuesday, 18 November 2003 16:12 (twenty-one years ago)

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGH!

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 18 November 2003 16:12 (twenty-one years ago)

My initial reaction to the CNN article was all "Kick ASS!" but then I realized it's not nearly as kick-ass as I thought. It's confusing. But the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court stopped short of allowing marriage licenses to be issued to the couples who challenged the law Um, why?

― Jeanne Fury (Jeanne Fury), Tuesday, 18 November 2003 16:12 (twenty-one years ago)

yeah me too. didn't mean to derail.

― Chris B. Sure (Chris V), Tuesday, 18 November 2003 16:13 (twenty-one years ago)

What's the difference between a gay marriage and a civil union, such as Vermont has authorized? Is marriage more preferable for same-sex couples, and why? (Is it a matter of "legitimizing" the relationship?) Part of me thinks that civil unions are the way to go, even if it's just a semantic difference, because getting rid of the word "marriage" might appease the fundamentalists for whom that word has a very specific meaning, which acts like these threaten. But maybe there's something less than ideal about that?

― jaymc (jaymc), Tuesday, 18 November 2003 16:21 (twenty-one years ago)

if the fundamentalists have such a problem, let them come up with a new term for specifically two-gender spousal units

― Huckleberry Mann (Horace Mann), Tuesday, 18 November 2003 16:24 (twenty-one years ago)

Why Jeanne Fury? Because it's going back to the legislature and they will have 180 days to well, probably overturn it (from the AOL story, which is only reported in half on CNN forsome reason): While a victory for gay rights advocates, the decision fell short of what the seven couples who sued the state had hoped to receive: the right to marry their longtime companion.

The Massachusetts question will now return to the Legislature, which already is considering a constitutional amendment that would legally define a marriage as a union between one man and one woman. The state's powerful Speaker of the House, Tom Finneran of Boston, has endorsed this proposal.

A similar initiative, launched by citizens, was defeated by the Legislature last year on a procedural vote.

This may not reallybe a victory at all, since it will only add momentum to the freaks who want to adopt the marriage= hetero amendment (aka BushCo): The U.S. House is currently considering a constitutional ban on gay marriage. President Bush, although he believes marriage should be defined as a union between one man and one woman, recently said that a constitutional amendment is not yet necessary.

Gov. Mitt Romney has repeatedly said that marriage should be preserved as a union between a man and a woman, but has declined to comment on what he would do if gay marriages are legalized. On the campaign trail last fall, Romney said he would veto gay-marriage legislation. He supports giving domestic benefits such as inheritance and hospital visitation rights to gay couples.

― Vic (Vic), Tuesday, 18 November 2003 16:26 (twenty-one years ago)

Twould probably be better if we dispensed with the term "Marriage" being a legal one at all. It would be a purely religious term with no more meaning, and therefore scariness, than any other purely religious term like "excommunication" or such. Have "Civil Union" be a legal term which entitles its couples to legal status and rights regardless of preference, gender, religion, or anything else except "we have chosen to make ourselves an economic and social unit for legal purposes".

― Citizen Kate (kate), Tuesday, 18 November 2003 16:27 (twenty-one years ago)

NPR was saying something this morning(pre voting) about how it doesn't really mean that much until people vote on it?....i guess the same thing happened in Alaska a few years back; the court ruled the ban unconstitutional, then it was thrown out by the masses? (i wasn't awake yet when i heard the report)

xpost

― kephm, Tuesday, 18 November 2003 16:28 (twenty-one years ago)

then maybe gays could come up with their random word for their unions like MARIAGGE

― Huckleberry Mann (Horace Mann), Tuesday, 18 November 2003 16:29 (twenty-one years ago)

I like that idea, Kate.

― jaymc (jaymc), Tuesday, 18 November 2003 16:29 (twenty-one years ago)

Of course, try explaining that to little girls besotten by the idea of getting married someday.

― jaymc (jaymc), Tuesday, 18 November 2003 16:30 (twenty-one years ago)

Kate is OTM, that is where my rationale always leads. Sometimes my rationale then turns and looks at me and says "dude, if you're gonna play with words like that, you need a smack"!

― Hunter (Hunter), Tuesday, 18 November 2003 16:39 (twenty-one years ago)

I just feel like anything less than full-fledged same-as-heteros "marriage" rights is the gov't's attempt to placate the queers. It's like, "Here, we'll give you this but remember -- you're still just half a person, not a whole person, because only heteros are recognized as whole people with whole rights."

― Jeanne Fury (Jeanne Fury), Tuesday, 18 November 2003 16:42 (twenty-one years ago)

It's sort of (but not quite) like saying, "okay, women can vote, we're just not going to count them"

― Huckleberry Mann (Horace Mann), Tuesday, 18 November 2003 16:44 (twenty-one years ago)

hey america, stay homophobic please...the gay tourists are good for Canada's economy.

Oh, yeah, like the gay people really travel to your neck of the north...

Ahem.

Anyway, agreed that from what I've read, this isn't like Canada at all, in that it seems like the Mass Legislature can write a law that prohibits gay marriage. I think. I mean, maybe that law would then get struck down as unconstitutional... I dunno, it's weird.

Still, it sells newspapers!

― Casuistry (Chris P), Tuesday, 18 November 2003 16:45 (twenty-one years ago)

No, it's more like saying "Women can vote, but we're not going to call it voting, we're going to call it Female Balloteering".

― Citizen Kate (kate), Tuesday, 18 November 2003 16:45 (twenty-one years ago)

kate JOTO

― Huckleberry Mann (Horace Mann), Tuesday, 18 November 2003 16:46 (twenty-one years ago)

What worries me is that I've been hearing that Bush is going to turn his "save marriage" amendment initiative into an election issue. That's why we haven't been hearing about it so much, but it's been worked on all this time. When they suspect that they're vulnerable next year, they'll whip it out and exploit the hysteria to no ends..

― Vic (Vic), Tuesday, 18 November 2003 16:47 (twenty-one years ago)

Female Balloteering that will only count in the dimension that recognizes Female Ballots.

― Jeanne Fury (Jeanne Fury), Tuesday, 18 November 2003 16:56 (twenty-one years ago)

and every time you want to vote, you have spend five years in court

― Huckleberry Mann (Horace Mann), Tuesday, 18 November 2003 16:58 (twenty-one years ago)

Well, although I just got an e-mail from HRC, and they seem to think it is more like Canada's situation. In which case, rah!

― Casuistry (Chris P), Tuesday, 18 November 2003 16:58 (twenty-one years ago)

You know, if Bush does indeed make "save marriage" a battle call for his election, this may in fact backfire for Bush, keeping in mind the just-right-of-center Bush supporters or Libertarians. The conservatives, overall, may have power of the pendulum right now, but the Religious Right don't necessarily have that same power. In fact, they seem to be losing it more slowly overall, no matter who's president.

― donut bitch (donut), Tuesday, 18 November 2003 18:34 (twenty-one years ago)

(at least that's my hope)

― donut bitch (donut), Tuesday, 18 November 2003 18:34 (twenty-one years ago)

The defocusing of the unity of conservative voters via the Religious Right has had a history of fucking up the Republicans in the past. Bush Sr.'s attempt at a second term, for instance. And (from what I remember), Dole. They were'nt huge factors, but factors nevertheless.

― donut bitch (donut), Tuesday, 18 November 2003 18:37 (twenty-one years ago)

I mean, I sooooo hope Pat Robertson or Ralph Reed come in and skunk the Repub picnic this coming election year. (Too bad, the Dems have just as many potential skunks of their own to do that, if not more)

― donut bitch (donut), Tuesday, 18 November 2003 18:39 (twenty-one years ago)

the xian right's got their eyes on the judiciary (xian right are smart) and have not yielded their claim on it one bit with bushco (hence ashcroft - a sop to the fundies - at attorney general). bush doesn't want gay marriage to be a 2004 issue any more than the democrats do (see also: abortion). ralph reed's somewhat disassociated himself from the xian right - he's more focused on consolidating gop dominance of the south.

― cinniblount (James Blount), Tuesday, 18 November 2003 18:51 (twenty-one years ago)

cinniblount, I nominate you president of the Gay Agenda.

― donut bitch (donut), Tuesday, 18 November 2003 19:39 (twenty-one years ago)

the xian right's got their eyes on the judiciary (xian right are smart) and have not yielded their claim on it one bit with bushco (hence ashcroft - a sop to the fundies - at attorney general).

Isn't an Attorney General's term 4 years? Who is next in line to take over, or can Ashcroft hold his seat forever (like Supreme Court Judiciary)?

bush doesn't want gay marriage to be a 2004 issue any more than the democrats do (see also: abortion).

True, but he can't ignore the fact of gay constituents, either. They're here, and they ain't disappearing any time soon. Sooner or later, he'll have to spit out an actual opinion.

― Nichole Graham (Nichole Graham), Tuesday, 18 November 2003 19:51 (twenty-one years ago)

Isn't the AG appointed by the President?

― Casuistry (Chris P), Tuesday, 18 November 2003 19:52 (twenty-one years ago)

Isn't an Attorney General's term 4 years?

Theoretically it's as long as the person wants to do it unless the President wants to replace the current officeholder or said officeholder is convicted of a crime, as I recall.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 18 November 2003 19:53 (twenty-one years ago)

yeah, it's like any other cabinet position

― cinniblount (James Blount), Tuesday, 18 November 2003 19:55 (twenty-one years ago)

and bush spit out an opinion, some mushmouth 'sanctity of marriage' bullshit coded 'whatever you needs I gots' to the xian right. not as 'out' as scalia's 'dude the fags are totally taking over' but enough of a bone for the fundies.

― cinniblount (James Blount), Tuesday, 18 November 2003 19:58 (twenty-one years ago)

I mean I think they know which way this issue is heading - proposing a constitutional amendment reeks of desperation.

― cinniblount (James Blount), Tuesday, 18 November 2003 20:00 (twenty-one years ago)

no way are they going for a constitutional amendment.

― don weiner, Tuesday, 18 November 2003 20:09 (twenty-one years ago)

yeah, for one thing neither side is really interested in having this debate, it's purely a rally the troops issue, and also no way would such an amendment get ratified and no way does the xian right just hand a victory like that to the gay rights movement.

― cinniblount (James Blount), Tuesday, 18 November 2003 20:13 (twenty-one years ago)

This article in Slate is probably the best defense of the Massachusetts decision I've read. Nice work.

― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 26 November 2003 22:44 (twenty-one years ago)

Have people realized yet that if marriage is a "sacred institution", then every person who has been married by a justice of the peace will have their marriages anulled as a side-effect of this?

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 27 November 2003 05:32 (twenty-one years ago)

yes

― cinniblount (James Blount), Thursday, 27 November 2003 05:47 (twenty-one years ago)

awesome! the whole USA will be like a middle-aged spring break!

― Huckleberry Mann (Horace Mann), Thursday, 27 November 2003 15:25 (twenty-one years ago)

Hardbodies 3: The Viagra Chronicles

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 27 November 2003 15:36 (twenty-one years ago)

HIIIIIIIIIIII, LETSSS GET HIC MARRRIIIED, tEEEE HEEEEEE!!!!

― donut bitch (donut), Friday, 28 November 2003 03:51 (twenty-one years ago)

two months pass...

Well well.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 4 February 2004 20:34 (twenty-one years ago)

I honestly have yet to see a convincing, or evel well-enunciated argument against gay marriage.
I mean, you wanna protect the sanctity of your covenant with God? Start at home, bub.

― Huckadelphia (Horace Mann), Wednesday, 4 February 2004 20:38 (twenty-one years ago)

Horace has turned into Wolverine!

― El Diablo Robotico (Nicole), Wednesday, 4 February 2004 20:42 (twenty-one years ago)

or possibly Ben Vereen!

― Huckadelphia (Horace Mann), Wednesday, 4 February 2004 20:43 (twenty-one years ago)

Can he teleport with Professor Xavier and company into the Oval Office, then?

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 4 February 2004 20:43 (twenty-one years ago)

I feel like moving my ring to my wedding-ring finger just because. But I won't. That'd be like, so gay.

― Jeanne Fury (Jeanne Fury), Wednesday, 4 February 2004 20:46 (twenty-one years ago)

No. 1 argument against hetero monopoly on marriage:
http://routergod.com/darvaconger/darva_conger_headshot.jpg

― Huckadelphia (Horace Mann), Wednesday, 4 February 2004 20:49 (twenty-one years ago)

Aaaah! What is it?

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 4 February 2004 20:52 (twenty-one years ago)

oh god. i would SO watch, "Who Wants to Marry a Gay Millionaire?"

the talent portion alone would be worth it.

― Kingfish Funyun (Kingfish), Wednesday, 4 February 2004 20:54 (twenty-one years ago)

reason number 2:
http://gfx.dagbladet.no/magasinet/2003/08/28/jacksonpresley.jpg

― Huckadelphia (Horace Mann), Wednesday, 4 February 2004 20:55 (twenty-one years ago)

Woah, lesbian kissin-- uhhhhhh...

― Leee Majors (Leee), Wednesday, 4 February 2004 22:56 (twenty-one years ago)

three months pass...

US Supreme Court refuses last minute injunction. Gay marriage legal in Massachusetts starting Monday.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Saturday, 15 May 2004 01:42 (twenty-one years ago)

no way are they going for a constitutional amendment.
-- don weiner (migg...), November 18th, 2003.

yeah, for one thing neither side is really interested in having this debate, it's purely a rally the troops issue, and also no way would such an amendment get ratified and no way does the xian right just hand a victory like that to the gay rights movement.

-- cinniblount (littlejohnnyjewe...), November 18th, 2003.

Hm, if only. Interesting how Bush's attempt to make that a defining issue for the election died, though I gather they're still trying to do something about it in Congress.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Saturday, 15 May 2004 01:45 (twenty-one years ago)

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=domesticNews&storyID=5167985

Looks like the first DMA challenge might be in Al-uh-BAMA.

― miloauckerman (miloauckerman), Monday, 17 May 2004 17:32 (twenty-one years ago)

I stand by my previous comments.

An amendment will not be offered before the election.

They'll talk about it to rally the theocrats, but it will not formally be presented.

― don carville weiner, Monday, 17 May 2004 17:36 (twenty-one years ago)

One of my church choir colleagues is getting married to his partner at this church (which is literally 3 doors down from my office building) on Thursday. The wife and I are planning on going.

― VengaDan Perry (Dan Perry), Monday, 17 May 2004 17:37 (twenty-one years ago)

:-) :-) How grand! Hope it's a fine ceremony. :-)

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 17 May 2004 17:38 (twenty-one years ago)

Apparently it will be all of 20 minutes. They're paying $100. I am not envious of this, not at all (grr still paying for wedding from FIVE YEARS AGO grr grr grr).

― VengaDan Perry (Dan Perry), Monday, 17 May 2004 17:40 (twenty-one years ago)

What the...paying for...wait, YOU'RE paying for the wedding? I thought the dad of the bride did that. DID STEVE MARTIN LIE TO ME?

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 17 May 2004 17:41 (twenty-one years ago)

modern times ned, modern times.

― Ask For Samantha (thatgirl), Monday, 17 May 2004 17:44 (twenty-one years ago)

Now I'm imagining Dan as a factory worker being shouted at by huge bosses on screens and wackily getting caught in huge gearworks.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 17 May 2004 17:45 (twenty-one years ago)

Dan, I arrive in Boston on Friday at noon for a weekend of merriment which, unfortunately, does not include a wedding. I wonder if anyone will be getting married at Fenway.

― don carville weiner, Monday, 17 May 2004 18:17 (twenty-one years ago)

I don't know; Arlington St Church is marrying people pretty much around the clock all week from what I understand.

― VengaDan Perry (Dan Perry), Monday, 17 May 2004 18:18 (twenty-one years ago)

If there is an open bar I am ready to crash.

Although in a $100 wedding, the bar probably isn't open for too long.

― don carville weiner, Monday, 17 May 2004 18:25 (twenty-one years ago)

eleven months pass...

Nebraska judge rules ban on gay marriage unconstitutional
U.S. Judge Rejects Neb. Gay-Marriage Ban
BY KEVIN O'HANLON, Associated Press Writer
2 hours, 11 minutes ago

LINCOLN, Neb. - A federal judge Thursday struck down Nebraska's ban on gay marriage, saying the measure interferes not only with the rights of gay couples but also with those of foster parents, adopted children and people in a host of other living arrangements.
The constitutional amendment, which defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman, was passed overwhelmingly by the voters in November 2000.
U.S. District Judge Joseph Bataillon said the ban "imposes significant burdens on both the expressive and intimate associational rights" of gays "and creates a significant barrier to the plaintiffs' right to petition or to participate in the political process."
Bataillon said the ban beyond "goes far beyond merely defining marriage as between a man and a woman."
The judge said the "broad proscriptions could also interfere with or prevent arrangements between potential adoptive or foster parents and children, related persons living together, and people sharing custody of children as well as gay individuals."
Forty states have laws barring same-sex marriages, but Nebraska's ban went further, prohibiting same-sex couples from enjoying many of the legal protections that heterosexual couples enjoy. Gays and lesbians who work for the state or the University of Nebraska system, for example, were banned from sharing health insurance and other benefits with their partners.
Nebraska has no state law against gay marriage, but state Attorney General Jon Bruning said same-sex marriages were not allowed before the ban and would not be permitted now.
Bruning said he will appeal the ruling.
"Seventy percent of Nebraskans voted for the amendment to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman, and I believe that the citizens of this state have a right to structure their constitution as they see fit," Bruning said.
[...]
The ruling did not surprise the executive director of the Nebraska Family Council, which led the petition drive to get the ban on the ballot. Al Riskowski said the decision will renew the call to pass a constitutional amendment defining marriage as only between a man and a woman.

Again, there's no law allowing folks of the same gender to legally wed in Nebraska, but that just ain't good enough for some people...

― kingfish, Friday, 13 May 2005 02:36 (twenty years ago)

two years pass...

Good news, I'd say.

― Ned Raggett, Thursday, 14 June 2007 19:08 (eighteen years ago)

Excellent! I was downtown earlier and saw all kinds of people with badges so I assumed there was some kind of protest or rally related to this. This is great.

― ENBB, Thursday, 14 June 2007 19:16 (eighteen years ago)

People should celebrate by COMING TO MY GIG ON THURSDAY

― HI DERE, Thursday, 14 June 2007 19:21 (eighteen years ago)

Wow. This is horrible news for the gun safety lobby.

― humansuit, Thursday, 14 June 2007 19:23 (eighteen years ago)

I'll go, Dan, but only as a symbol of my support for gay rights

― Curt1s Stephens, Thursday, 14 June 2007 19:23 (eighteen years ago)

If my gay wings were working, Dan, I'd fly over.

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Thursday, 14 June 2007 19:24 (eighteen years ago)

Wait - Dan is the gig tonight or a week from tonight?

― ENBB, Thursday, 14 June 2007 19:25 (eighteen years ago)

Week from tonight, Bullfinch Yacht Club

Details here

― HI DERE, Thursday, 14 June 2007 19:26 (eighteen years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.