Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Gay mariage will not be blocked anymore

Gay mariage will not be blocked anymore
Thread Tools
angaq0k
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Over there...
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 14, 2004, 07:07 PM
 
...as I heard on radio today.

I am not into mariage, but I am happy Gay people got that for themselves.

Enjoy your marriage guys and gals! Best wishes to the couple!

"******* politics is for the ******* moment. ******** equations are for ******** Eternity." ******** Albert Einstein
     
Turias
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Minnesota
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 14, 2004, 07:17 PM
 
I'm skeptical until I see a link from a reputable source.
     
angaq0k  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Over there...
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 14, 2004, 07:26 PM
 
OK.

I got it from radio.

Here is a link:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4980388/

Gays set to marry in Massachusetts
Under landmark ruling, couples can get licenses Monday
The Associated Press
Updated: 6:51 p.m._ET May_ 14, 2004
So it is in Mass.

Sorry for the excitement.

I too want to bring good news sometimes...
"******* politics is for the ******* moment. ******** equations are for ******** Eternity." ******** Albert Einstein
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 14, 2004, 08:25 PM
 
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
Ratm
Mac Elite
Join Date: Dec 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 14, 2004, 08:36 PM
 
     
slow moe
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 14, 2004, 09:55 PM
 
Name one country, where gay marriage is legal, that has had a broad-based tax cut in the last five years.

A vote for gay marriage at this point is a vote for big government.

The holy sanctimony of marriage is between the people and their religion, between them and their God, not between the people and the State.

As for me, I don't really care for the idea of judges telling the legislative branch what to do.
Lysdexics have more fnu.
     
Secret__Police
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: May 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 14, 2004, 10:14 PM
 
Let them Marry. Let them live in peace. Why do people stand in the way of their pursuit of happiness?
In 50 years we can compare divorce rates and be shocked at how similar the numbers will be.

Article IV, Section 2
Section 2. The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.
     
slow moe
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 14, 2004, 10:26 PM
 
The only requirement for marriage should be your parents permission, and that's it.

Marriage licenses are just another way for the gov't to have jurisdiction over your life, including you're kids. Yes, your kids. You had to seek out a marriage license from the gov't for permission to get married didn't you, and the whole purpose of marriage is to have kids. Well, put the two together and guess what. Combine that with public schools, and mawhahahahaha!!
Lysdexics have more fnu.
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 14, 2004, 10:44 PM
 
Originally posted by slow moe:
The holy sanctimony of marriage is between the people and their religion, between them and their God, not between the people and the State.
So, everyone that does not belong to a religion should be banned from marriage? What if a religion emerges that advocates gay marriage?

Massachusetts, welcome to the free world! Soon, the rest of your nation will be liberated from the tyranny of religious influence over your government.
     
djohnson
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 15, 2004, 12:12 AM
 
Originally posted by slow moe:
The only requirement for marriage should be your parents permission, and that's it.

Marriage licenses are just another way for the gov't to have jurisdiction over your life, including you're kids. Yes, your kids. You had to seek out a marriage license from the gov't for permission to get married didn't you, and the whole purpose of marriage is to have kids. Well, put the two together and guess what. Combine that with public schools, and mawhahahahaha!!
Wrong. The reason I married my wife was because I loved her and want to spend the rest of my life with her. If we have children, then great. If not, well then great too.
     
itai195
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Cupertino, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 15, 2004, 12:19 AM
 
Originally posted by slow moe:
Name one country, where gay marriage is legal, that has had a broad-based tax cut in the last five years.

A vote for gay marriage at this point is a vote for big government.
If these are the arguments the anti-gay marriage side has been reduced to, I think they're in trouble...
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 15, 2004, 12:55 AM
 
Originally posted by slow moe:
Name one country, where gay marriage is legal, that has had a broad-based tax cut in the last five years.

A vote for gay marriage at this point is a vote for big government.
That�s a new one.

Actually it�s the anti-gay marriage crowd that�s cheering on �Big Government�. You�re asking for �Big Government� to enforce your beliefs on others. No matter how �right� you think you are, by doing that you have no room then to criticize anyone else for believing they�re right to ram their own set of beliefs (whether you agree with them or not) down your throat. So if for example, it�s part of someone�s �belief system� or �faith� to believe that 90% of your paycheck should be confiscated and turned over to some Big Government program, then who are you to deny them that belief? Fork over and like it.

The true purpose of marriage and the legal recognition of it also runs a lot deeper than the gross oversimplifications you�re floating. People can get together all they want and form out of wedlock relationships, but marriage as well as being a symbolic and spiritual union, ties the loose ends of any number of complex legal issues that cannot be separated from the institution, that MUST be dealt with by the government and legal system, and that should be equally considered for ALL adult citizens.

Most of us feel that society does have to place some restrictions on these unions, IE: TWO (and only two) HUMAN BEINGS (and only human beings), who are ADULTS, not blood relatives, etc. More and more, people are coming to realize that the two people being gay is NOT a legitimate restriction in line with the others and that only backwards minded thinking keeps it as such.

It�s also the height of �Big Government� thinking for people to demand that the government enforce their belief system for them, and more people who call themselves anti-Big Government �conservatives� but still argue vehemently for the big bad Govt. to enforce their religion for them, need think a little deeper on it.
     
lurkalot
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Apr 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 15, 2004, 01:02 AM
 
Originally posted by slow moe:
Name one country, where gay marriage is legal, that has had a broad-based tax cut in the last five years.

A vote for gay marriage at this point is a vote for big government.

The holy sanctimony of marriage is between the people and their religion, between them and their God, not between the people and the State.

As for me, I don't really care for the idea of judges telling the legislative branch what to do.
I somehow doubt it will satisfy you given the rest of your message but how about the Netherlands? Gay marriage and tax cuts (OECD) in the same year, it seems.

Rebuttal, some generalization and a bit of preemption;

Marriage is neither today nor was it historically a religious institution, certainly not a cristian religious institution. Neither is religion required in the marriage ritual.

There have obviously been marriages performed within that religion's many cults as well for some time now but what makes you think that there are almost proprietary rights to the use of the term "marriage" held by religious groups? What makes you think that the religious groups can either grant or withhold the right to use the word marriage for rituals and institutions only they approve of? The fake compromise use of the term civil union is neither theirs to offer nor to reject ... and no... The council of Trent is not legally binding.

Why do religious people -and conservatives in particular- always pick some arbitrary point in time and then start claiming whatever change they made in existing practices as universal history and tradition from that point on?

Why do they deny that whatever they are claiming for their own, in most cases, already existed before they incorporated it at that arbitrary point into their culture, society, institutions, rituals or whatever?

Marriages were conducted before there was even such a thing as the christian religion and many marriages continue to be performed without any involvement of any religion whatsoever to this day.

The change required now is the use of gender neutral terms on the marriage certificates that will no longer make legally significant distinguishing references to whether the marriage partners are mixed or same chromosome pairs.

After the marriage ceremony those people will be married.

Whatever additional rituals need to be performed to give their marriage the religious significance they choose may be added at their own discretion.

Since that's what they are in every other aspect let's call all marriages, Marriages.

That is what will start happening in Massachusetts very soon. We will evolve.

The Supreme law of the land demands it. No compelling argument exists to continue to discriminate certain people and deny them their fundamental rights. All the Judges did was acknowledge this. Goodridge
( Last edited by lurkalot; May 15, 2004 at 01:08 AM. )
     
Dakar
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Pretentiously Retired.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 15, 2004, 01:50 AM
 
Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
Actually it�s the anti-gay marriage crowd that�s cheering on �Big Government�. You�re asking for �Big Government� to enforce your beliefs on others. No matter how �right� you think you are, by doing that you have no room then to criticize anyone else for believing they�re right to ram their own set of beliefs (whether you agree with them or not) down your throat. So if for example, it�s part of someone�s �belief system� or �faith� to believe that 90% of your paycheck should be confiscated and turned over to some Big Government program, then who are you to deny them that belief? Fork over and like it.

The true purpose of marriage and the legal recognition of it also runs a lot deeper than the gross oversimplifications you�re floating. People can get together all they want and form out of wedlock relationships, but marriage as well as being a symbolic and spiritual union, ties the loose ends of any number of complex legal issues that cannot be separated from the institution, that MUST be dealt with by the government and legal system, and that should be equally considered for ALL adult citizens.

Most of us feel that society does have to place some restrictions on these unions, IE: TWO (and only two) HUMAN BEINGS (and only human beings), who are ADULTS, not blood relatives, etc. More and more, people are coming to realize that the two people being gay is NOT a legitimate restriction in line with the others and that only backwards minded thinking keeps it as such.

It�s also the height of �Big Government� thinking for people to demand that the government enforce their belief system for them, and more people who call themselves anti-Big Government �conservatives� but still argue vehemently for the big bad Govt. to enforce their religion for them, need think a little deeper on it.
That't the best darn post I've read in a while. I give it
     
MindFad
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Sep 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 15, 2004, 01:53 AM
 
Good for them. That's awesome.
     
slow moe
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 15, 2004, 07:59 AM
 
The whole idea of a government issued marriage license is discriminatory.

There is something fundamentally wrong when two people, ANY two people, have to ask the government for permission to join in union whether that union be HOLY matrimony or not.

If you continue to ask the government to solve all your problems, expect to deal with a hefty tax burden in return.
Lysdexics have more fnu.
     
Oisín
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Copenhagen
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 15, 2004, 08:58 AM
 
Originally posted by slow moe:
The only requirement for marriage should be your parents permission, and that's it.


You are talking about minors only here, right?
     
Montezuma58
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Madison, AL
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 15, 2004, 09:31 AM
 
Originally posted by slow moe:
The whole idea of a government issued marriage license is discriminatory.

There is something fundamentally wrong when two people, ANY two people, have to ask the government for permission to join in union whether that union be HOLY matrimony or not.

If you continue to ask the government to solve all your problems, expect to deal with a hefty tax burden in return.
Marriage licenses aren't really about the state granting people permission to marry. It's more of a bureaucratic formality that simplifies state recognition of your marriage. Except for cases like some blood relatives wanting to marry or cases involving a minor they will give a license to anybody that asks. Getting a marriage license from the sate is hardly the same thing as begging for the king's permission to wed.
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 15, 2004, 09:53 AM
 
Originally posted by Montezuma58:
Marriage licenses aren't really about the state granting people permission to marry. It's more of a bureaucratic formality that simplifies state recognition of your marriage. Except for cases like some blood relatives wanting to marry or cases involving a minor they will give a license to anybody that asks. Getting a marriage license from the sate is hardly the same thing as begging for the king's permission to wed.
If it isn't about granting permission, then why must everyone seek permission? If "more of a bureaucratic formality that simplifies state recognition of your marriage", why does the government dictate which marriages they will and won't recognize?
     
Montezuma58
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Madison, AL
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 15, 2004, 10:42 AM
 
Since 1967 when laws dealing with interracial marriages were thrown out, when was the last time you've heard about someone being denied the right to marry? The marriage license is pretty much like a fishing license. They'll give it anybody that lays down the fee to get it. There is not any discretion given to the official issuing the license. There's not any panel that you have to go before or test you have to take prove you're worthy of getting a married.

The real purpose for the license is for the couple getting married to inform the state of their union not for the state to regulate who gets married. It's merely a procedural step that those who wish to have their marriages recognized by the state need to perform.

It is the laws that ban recognition of gay marriages that are the real problem. Those are what are getting in the way of gay couples getting married. When the laws are changed to allow for same sex marriages the license process will not be an impediment.
     
fireside
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Floreeda
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 15, 2004, 03:33 PM
 
** starts selling plane tickets to Massachusetts for discount prices **
     
dcolton
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 15, 2004, 03:44 PM
 
Minor victory. Gay couples from any other state can't legally get married in Mass if their home state won;t recognize the union. (If I remember correctly).

So is Mass going to become the San Francisco of the 21st century? I bet if they do, law will be repealed pretty quick
     
fireside
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Floreeda
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 15, 2004, 04:31 PM
 
Originally posted by dcolton:
Minor victory. Gay couples from any other state can't legally get married in Mass if their home state won;t recognize the union. (If I remember correctly).

So is Mass going to become the San Francisco of the 21st century? I bet if they do, law will be repealed pretty quick
Every state has to recognize the laws of other states.

US Constitution: Article 4: Section 1
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 15, 2004, 05:45 PM
 
In other news, Republicans go on a rampage and burn Gay priests. Rumsfield calls it a "hazing."
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
TheMosco
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: MA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 15, 2004, 06:45 PM
 
Originally posted by fireside:
Every state has to recognize the laws of other states.

US Constitution: Article 4: Section 1

I wonder if this will be the test of the "Defense" of marriage act.
AXP
ΔΣΦ
     
Spliffdaddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 15, 2004, 06:56 PM
 
Originally posted by fireside:
Every state has to recognize the laws of other states.

US Constitution: Article 4: Section 1
Tennessee won't comply.

edit:

The harder you try, the more they'll resist.
( Last edited by Spliffdaddy; May 15, 2004 at 08:13 PM. )
     
AKcrab
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Wasilla, Alaska
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 15, 2004, 07:05 PM
 
Originally posted by olePigeon:
In other news, Republicans go on a rampage and burn Gay priests. Rumsfield calls it a "hazing."
You write for the onion?
     
cpt kangarooski
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 15, 2004, 07:11 PM
 
Originally posted by dcolton:
So is Mass going to become the San Francisco of the 21st century? I bet if they do, law will be repealed pretty quick
So I guess you haven't actually been to Massachusetts anytime lately, huh?
--
This and all my other posts are hereby in the public domain. I am a lawyer. But I'm not your lawyer, and this isn't legal advice.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 15, 2004, 07:54 PM
 
Oh no, our sons and daughter are all going to turn gay tomorrow. The sky is falling, the horror.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
Dakar
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Pretentiously Retired.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2004, 04:58 AM
 
Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Tennessee won't comply.

edit:

The harder you try, the more they'll resist.
What's the alternative? Don't try and they are content to maintain things the way they are.

I thought conservatives respect determination to see a goal achieved.
     
Spliffdaddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2004, 08:42 AM
 
Nobody claimed Tennessee was a conservative state, and I never said that I would support Tennessee's resistance to being forced into accepting gay marriage.

It's simply an established fact that Tennessee does not like to be told what to do - as a matter of principle. They aren't 'anti-gay'. If current laws supported gay marriage, then Tennessee would be just as likely to refuse to outlaw gay marriage simply because the other 49 states want Tennessee to comply. Tennessee won't be told what to do. They just won't. It's the only thing that makes Tennessee unique when compared to the other states. And, no, they don't much care whether or not non-Tennesseans approve.
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2004, 10:31 PM
 
Originally posted by AKcrab:
You write for the onion?
Hah, wouldn't that be cool. Those guys must have so much fun.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
TheMosco
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: MA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2004, 10:44 PM
 
1 hour and 17 minutes until gay marriage is legal in MA. I guess there are huge lines outside city halls.
AXP
ΔΣΦ
     
zen jihad
Registered User
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Just a groove in "G"
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2004, 08:55 AM
 
This is excellent news. Here's the BBC article.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3719905.stm
     
dreilly1
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Rochester, NY, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2004, 09:38 AM
 
This was actually in the works for quite some time: IIRC, the initial state court ruling held that denying marriages to same-sex partners violated the Massachusetts State Constitution, and gave the state a few months to come into compliance. Since there was really no way to amend the constitution in that amount of time, the state had no choice but to start issuing licenses once the deadline came. The last few challenges were aiming to change or delay that deadline.

I think the deadline was a little too short: anti-Gay marriage advocates could rightly claim that the state was railroaded into issuing licenses without giving lawmakers adequate time to implement an alternate solution. Nevertheless, this is a huge step forward, and I predict that in twenty or thirty years, once lots of gay couples are married and the "fabric of society" stays intact, we'll all wonder what the fuss was about.

But the story isn't over: states could decide that they won't recognize same-sex marriages from other states, Massachusetts could decide to amend their constitution to ban same-sex marriages and deny the benefits of marriage to same-sex couples, and those who did get married could find that they only really got a piece of paper with none of the privleges that traditional married couples enjoy. Those of you in the U.S. who feel strongly about this should write to your state legislatures and let them know how you feel, because that's where the next debate will take place.

Member of the the Stupid Brigade! (If you see Sponsored Links in any of my posts, please PM me!)
     
cpt kangarooski
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2004, 11:57 AM
 
dreilly1--
IIRC, the initial state court ruling held that denying marriages to same-sex partners violated the Massachusetts State Constitution, and gave the state a few months to come into compliance.

...

I think the deadline was a little too short: anti-Gay marriage advocates could rightly claim that the state was railroaded into issuing licenses without giving lawmakers adequate time to implement an alternate solution.
Out of curiosity, what possible alternate solution could've been implemented that still would've respected the court's decision?

But the story isn't over: states could decide that they won't recognize same-sex marriages from other states,
Well, there has been some argument about whether that's possible.

Massachusetts could decide to amend their constitution to ban same-sex marriages and deny the benefits of marriage to same-sex couples, and those who did get married could find that they only really got a piece of paper with none of the privleges that traditional married couples enjoy.
And this would have some interesting fallout as well, since it basically amounts to the state deciding to divorce people whenever the hell it feels like it. That's not trivial.
--
This and all my other posts are hereby in the public domain. I am a lawyer. But I'm not your lawyer, and this isn't legal advice.
     
dreilly1
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Rochester, NY, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2004, 01:21 PM
 
Although I'm for gay marriage, I also believe that if a state wants to pass an amendment to their constitution to confirm to all the world that they're a bunch of bigots, they should be given the opportunity to. Once the constututional amendment process started in Mass., the court should have let it finish before mandating that the state allow gays to marry. If the amendment ultimately passes, then the state is in the position where it will have to invalidate thousands of marriages, like you say, because the constitution says they have to.

I just think it's better if they wait the year or two it would take to resolve the issue once and for all. At that point, if the amendment fails, then gays who get married in Massachusetts can have more security, because the state constitution is verifiably on their side.

Member of the the Stupid Brigade! (If you see Sponsored Links in any of my posts, please PM me!)
     
dcolton
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2004, 02:13 PM
 
Originally posted by fireside:
Every state has to recognize the laws of other states.

US Constitution: Article 4: Section 1
Mass law prohibits it.

Out-of-state same-sex couples are likely to challenge Massachusetts' 1913 marriage statute, which bars nonresident couples from marrying in Massachusetts if the union would be illegal in their home state. Republican Gov. Mitt Romney, who opposes same-sex marriage, has said that clerks who give licenses to nonresidents may face legal implications.
From: http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/05/17/sa....ap/index.html
     
cpt kangarooski
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2004, 03:30 PM
 
dreilly1--
if a state wants to pass an amendment to their constitution to confirm to all the world that they're a bunch of bigots, they should be given the opportunity to.
And the interests of justice would be furthered by this, how?

Once the constututional amendment process started in Mass., the court should have let it finish before mandating that the state allow gays to marry.
That's crazy. That's like saying that once the Supreme Court passed Brown v. Board of Education, they should have stayed it to give the segregationists time to strengthen their position.

I can see that sometimes decisions need to be stayed where amazing chaos would ensue since the legislature hasn't had time to prepare for the results of the decision. That's not even vaguely similar to nullifying a ruling so that it can be further nullified later.

At that point, if the amendment fails, then gays who get married in Massachusetts can have more security, because the state constitution is verifiably on their side.
No, you're wrong. The Constitution of Massachusetts, AFAIK, can be amended at any time (though the process takes a while). If an amendment contrary to the decision didn't pass once, that doesn't stop it from being sent up again, and again, and again, until it does pass.
--
This and all my other posts are hereby in the public domain. I am a lawyer. But I'm not your lawyer, and this isn't legal advice.
     
macvillage.net
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2004, 10:09 PM
 
.|.
( Last edited by macvillage.net; May 17, 2004 at 10:16 PM. )
     
Powerbook
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: München, Deutschland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 18, 2004, 08:58 AM
 


PB.
Aut Caesar aut nihil.
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:41 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,