Today we have the 9th Amendment to the Constitution. In light of the Bhutto assassination, how precious our Constitution and government are.
Amendment 9 -
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
One thing the Founding Fathers wanted to ensure was the freedom of people. As such, they didn't want the Constitution to be used to limit a person's life. The goal was to protect the people from the government. As such, they introduced this 9th Amendment. Under the Constitution, you have the right to do ANYTHING as an American Citizen, unless it is specifically prohibited by federal, state or local law. The other Amendments in the Constitution are not your only rights, which this Amendment specifies.
You want to run around your house naked, covered in green jello? Unless there is a law against it, go for it. You want to recite the Christmas Story every day? Unless there is a law against it, go for it. So on and so forth.
Misuse? The Constitution doesn't keep the federal, state or local governments from having authority or making laws. Many use the 9th Amendment to support the legalization of drugs. They suggest that they have a right to do drugs because the Constitution doesn't outlaw them. (Well, most just say "It doesn't hurt anyone...man... because it's like... of the earth and stuff.") Other groups have tried to use the 9th Amendment to try and force the State governments to allow things the State does not allow. (Good luck with that, many states don't allow citizens to make use of the 2nd Amendment, you're going to have a hard time inventing rights and making the state allow it.... though some groups are protected by 'politically correct' status and have an easier time than gun owners)
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Rest in peace
yourfuneralguy
http://www.lowercostfuneral.com
Judges try to invent rights.
Judiciary is out of control.
It is a HUGE violation of the flow of our government, and an ignorance of the balance of power, for the judges to 'legislate from the bench' . .. it isn't the job of the judge to 'make a right,' but is instead the job of the Congress.
The Judges also take away rights by the bench, which is just as unconstitutional.
However, given the rights they create and remove, there is no real public cry against it by the loud left.
Can you imagine if there was a vote outlawing firearms in the state of California, then a judge reversed it? There'd be rampant outcries about the evil judge.... Yet, when a judge reversed the vote of the California people when it came to homosexual marriage, there wasn't much said.... it worked in their favor.
Communism and Socialism, two horridly perverse, violent and oppressive forms of government, always come in by popular support.
Communism and Socialism, two horridly perverse, violent and oppressive forms of government, always come in by popular support.
That is b/c the majority of people love the ideas that communism and socialism bring up and think that their leaders are the one to take them there...They are just mistaken on the last part.
Once again, take out the failed practical applications and communism and socialism look a lot better...not everyone can have the "founding fathers" we did.
Nothing is True, Everything is Permitted
Yup, when you ignore every time communism and socialism have been instituted and shown to remove the rights of the people, then it doesn't seem all that bad. heh.
Actually seems kind of good...
Nothing is True, Everything is Permitted
Sure. Unless you're part of the huddled masses.
...and it is one that has been heard often enough from both sides of the aisle in our country over the years. But really, in most cases this is just an example of sour grapes. Why? Because the judicial review of legislation (and yes, even laws passed by referendum) is a clearly established role in our system of jurisprudence. Marbury v. Madison noted that Article III of the United States Constitution enumerates this power.
Actually, the situation in California is a perfect example of the double-think that seems to characterize the neo-conservative point-of-view on the legality of same-sex marriage. In Massachusetts, the typical complaint is that "judicial activism" was behind the legalization of same-sex marriages (even though a conservative SCOTUS upheld the State Court's action). But in California, where the elected representatives of The People actually passed legislation (twice) supporting the practice, the call from the right (and from conservative Governor Schwarzenegger) was to veto the new laws and ask the Court's for a decision.
As for the situation in the California courts, we are still waiting to see what the final result will be. The Trial Court said that it was unconstitutional to restrict marriage based on gender. The Appellate Court disagreed, and overturned the decision. The State Supreme Court has had the case under review for more than a year, but still has not reached a decision. Ultimately, however, same-sex marriage is not a 9th Amendment issue. The freedom to marry is well established in precedent on 14th Amendment grounds, and it is likely that any forthcoming decision will be couched in the same way.
percivale
-------------------------
"cdesign proponentsists" - (LINK)
San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom required that San Fran recognize same-sex marriages and, indeed, the Supreme Court said that he overstepped his bounds. (which is a no brainer, as the state, not the city, hands out marriage licenses, even if it is done THROUGH the city.) The marriages were ruled to be 'void'
In April of 2004, a PART of the CA state legislature set up a bill and passed committee to legalize homosexual marriage, then the state legislature voted it down.
Judge Kramer did rule that the 'gender bias' involved in the marriage code was unconstitutional... which became famous. Of course, that was overturned by the appellate court.
In 2005, Arnold did Veto a bill that would have legalized homosexual marriage.
But, what I am referencing was the vote in 2000, for (I beleve) Proposition 22, which passed by a vote of over 60 percent of California voters suggesting that marriage should be restricted to heterosexual couples. It was overturned by the Courts.
I believe it is being fought still, in the state supreme court.
Now, as for your opinon that a ban on same sex marriage somehow conflicts with the 14th Amendment, tell me why you, a gay male, are unable to marry a woman.... which I am?
Also tell me how I, a straight male, am somehow able to marry a male, whereas you are not?
Marriage is 1 man and 1 woman. It really always has been in at least the history of this country, and generally has been seen as man and woman for many generations before our founding fathers.
I happen to belive that the government doesn't need to be involved in the marital status of anyone.... not their job. Now, I wouldn't vote FOR homosexual marriage, as I have moral issues with it... however, if a state's voters vote for it, then that state would allow it... that's how our government works.
However, Proposition 22 was California's vote AGAINST homosexual marriage and the courts did indeed throw it out.
However the problem is that some states don't want to acknowledge the marriage in another. If the problem was only a "state by state issue" then we wouldn't have a problem. However, currently, each state must respect the laws passed in another. And states with a majority of people who have similar beliefs that you have, ie moral issues with gay marriage, don't want to ever recognize any gay marriage.
So your state is stopping my state from passing gay marriage even though we like it and you don't...simply b/c your state doesn't want to acknowledge what my state is doing. The issue would be fine if the fed just passed a law that in the confines of gay marriage, one state does not need to respect the laws of another.
Nothing is True, Everything is Permitted
Since the state has the authority to both issue marriage license, but also choose to recognize or not recognize the marriage license by another state, that isn't much of an issue.
Each state has the authority to determine if they will marry homosexuals and whether they'll recognize marriages done in other states.
States do not have to respect the laws of other states. They choose to.
My state doesn't keep your state from passing gay marriage. Your state doesn't have enough support for gay marraige to pass a vote. There are two issues a state votes on:
1.) Whether 'same sex couples' qualify for marriage as historically and culturally defined.
2.) Whether the state will recognize same sex couples from other states which were legally married in the other state.
That is already how it is. Each state decides on their own. It would be silly to have a federal law regarding marriage of ANY kind. I opposed the bill that President Bush wanted, as it isn't the job of the federal government to deal in marriage. Each state decides for themselves.... and the people of that state live with the choice the people of the state vote for.
Your comment is only partially correct. No State has to recognize any marriage performed in another State, but the act of denying marriage to a class of people falls clearly within the jurisdiction of the federal Constitution thanks to the 14th Amendment's requirement Equal Protection and Due Process.
True, but most States eventually DO choose to respect the laws of other States, since choosing not to do so is a sword that cuts both ways.
Well, they can vote on it if they wish, but ultimately such votes will likely prove irrelevant. Again, the Supreme Court has been pretty direct on this...
“Our prior cases make two propositions abundantly clear. First, the fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice; neither history nor tradition could save a law prohibiting miscegenation from constitutional attack. Second, individual decisions by married persons, concerning the intimacies of their physical relationship, even when not intended to produce offspring, are a form of “liberty” protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Moreover, this protection extends to intimate choices by unmarried as well as married persons.” ~ Lawrence v. Texas (2003)
While States do have the right to make their own laws regarding the issuance of marriage licenses, they do not have the right to arbitrarily deny the freedom to marry which is in fact a right that is reserved for The People. One need simply look to the extant precendents regarding attempts to limit interracial marriages to see how this works.
"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."
Following the decision in Loving v. Virgina (1967), States were not required to pass laws specifically governing interracial marriages, but they were required to remove any laws which contradicted the 14th Amendment's requirement Equal Protection and Due Process by denying those citizens the opportunity to marry in their respective States.
Well, the eight hundred pound gorilla sitting in the middle of that argument is the implication that such a position carries regarding the history of anti-miscegation in this country. If we followed this argument to its logical (sic) conclusion, then States would be able to make interracial marriages illegal, and to refuse to recognize interracial marriages performed in other States. States tried to do exactly this with their anti-miscegation laws back in the fifties and sixties, until eventually the Court stepped in and told them "no, you can't do that." If you *** just look at the legal issues at hand, the prallels between anti-miscegation laws and the "defense of marriage" legislation flying around the country are pretty obvious.
percivale
-------------------------
"cdesign proponentsists" - (LINK)
***Comment edited for TOS violations by mvenus929 on Jan 3, 2008.
Actually, I agreed with the Court on this one. A city mayor certainly doesn't have the authority to simply ignore a law simply because he doesn't like it.
Factually incorrect. Assembly Bill 849 died in committee. It never received an up or down vote in the legislature.
Fortunately, the apellate court does not have final jurisdiction on this case. The State Supreme Court has already taken up this case, and we will both have to wait and see as to what the final outcome of that question will be. (Actually, I think this particular case has the potential to go all the way to the SCOTUS.)
Indeed he did...and he was quite vocal in the press at the time saying that he felt that the Courts should be the ones to answer the question.
Proposition 22 was originally passed as a limit on out-of-state same-sex marriages, and was subsequently applied to in-state marriages only indirectly. And you're right, the State Supreme Court is still pending on this one. So, it really isn't acturate to say that "it was overturned by the Courts," though ultimately I think they will. When this happens, however, it won't be based on a 9th Amendment argument.
Let me answer your question with a few questions of my own. Do you think that the rights of female citizens and male citizens are different? Can you name even ONE basic right which is held by women, but not by men (or vice versa)?
The fact is that female citizens and male citizens are constitutionally required to be afforded the SAME rights. It is not between you and I that the constitutional disparity exists. If you (male, but also a citizen) can marry a woman, then why can't my friend Tammy (female, but also a citzen) do the same? Conversely, if she can marry a man, why can't I do the same. Your entire argument is based on the unsupportable premise that the unalienable rights of men and the unalienable rights of women are different.
The social institution of marriage didn't just magically pop into existence in 1776. There is a wealth of cultural history regarding the varieties of marriage of which even our founding fathers were aware of at least intellectually. The existence of the berdache and alternate gender marriages among the native people's of the New World goes back at least to the 16th Century.
But on a more practical level, marriage in this country is a legal institution that is defined by statute, and statutes can (and often are) changed. To quote the Supreme Court of the United States...
"Our prior cases make two propositions abundantly clear. First, the fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice; neither history nor tradition could save a law prohibiting miscegenation from constitutional attack. Second, individual decisions by married persons, concerning the intimacies of their physical relationship, even when not intended to produce offspring, are a form of “liberty” protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Moreover, this protection extends to intimate choices by unmarried as well as married persons." ~ Lawrence v. Texas (2003)
I agree. But, let's be realistic for a moment. The government isn't going to get out of the marriage business, and as such has a constitutional responsibity to ensure that its actions are applied equally to all citizens. Right now, that isn't happening.
Let's be frank...your objection to homosexuality is religious, not "moral." And fortunately, our founding fathers were wise enough to make that entire argument a moot point via that First (not the Ninth) Amendment.
That's a rather narrow view of the way our government works, and not really a valid one since the 14th Amendment declared that "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States..."
I think you are engaging in a rather liberal amout of spin in your comments, here. A Trial Court declared that Prop. 22's gender-specifc language was unconstitutional. The Apellate Court overturned that position. The State Supreme Court hasn't made up its mind, yet. Thus, Prop. 22 is still in effect in California...i.e. it hasn't really been "thrown out" at all, though it probably will be (on 14th, not 9th Amendment grounds), since even citizen sponsored initiatives have to be constitutionally consistent, even in California.
percivale
-------------------------
"cdesign proponentsists" - (LINK)
It couldn't receive the support needed. What does that tell you?
I agree in that it must be heard by the Supreme Court. That is the only way to settle the issue. However, in truth, if the Supreme Court finds that such laws are constitutional and that homosexuals are NOT covered by existing laws, then it won't be over. That is the nature of that moment.
Any US Citizen can marry an individual of the opposite gender. Any man can marry a woman and any woman can marry a man. While the genders have the same rights, but it is silly to suggest that a man is not different from a woman. Basic biology tells you that. As such, there is indeed a difference in gender, which is how one determines 1 man and 1 woman.
The BEST arguement that you have is that it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of gender. However, I think it is a GREAT stretch to suggest that marriage was on the minds of those who passed such leglislation.
You are very correct, which is why it should be put to the people in each state to vote for or against homosexual marriage in their state. However, this means that any state in which homosexual marriage is NOT allowed.... you have to accept that the people of that state voted that way. I'd have to accept that a state that voted FOR homosexual marriage has allowed it. There would be great conflict amongst the people... but how great of a country do we live in where such conflicts are decided by the vote, and not by bombings and assassinations, such as in other countries (pakistan comes to mind)
Liberal answer. "The Government really shouldn't be involved in that, so the solution is more government involvement."
If the government shouldn't be involved, then we ought to work to remove governmental involvement. At the very LEAST, we ought to fight FEDERAL involvement.
no, it is moral. My morals are based on my religious worldview..... as it would be stupid to have morals based on anything else, but that doesn't make them less of a 'moral' base.
No, that is an accurate view of how it works. Once again, however, you suggest that you, a male, are denied the right to marry a female. That isn't happening. You have the exact same right that I do. We can both marry a female.
I cannot marry a male, and neither can you. Therefore, there are no rights being denied you.
This is just as silly as the other poster who tried to suggest that a foriegner had a 'right' to become a US Citizen, and that right was denied if their US Citizen partner was of the same gender. They didn't quite understand that you don't have a RIGHT to be a citizen, and neither you nor I have the right to marry a male.... as we're both males.
Funny... you told me at first that no such thing took place. The Apellate Court had to overturn the decision to nullify the Proposition. The lower court HAD overturned the vote (and therefore the will) of the people of the State of California... which is precisely what you said had not happened.
BECAUSE the Apellate court overturned the decision, the law is still in effect.
***Comment edited for TOS violations by mvenus929 on Jan 3, 2008.
It tells me that your comment was (as I noted) incorrect. It also tells me that like many laws, it takes more than one session to gain the necessary votes to pass (which it did in this case in 2005 and 2006).
I'm not aware of any movement for human rights where the humans involved were willing to sit back and say, "gee, I guess we don't have any rights after all." So, in that regard you're probably right. But, as for the final result of the question of LGBT rights, the writting really is already on the wall. The precedents in Loving v. Virginia, Romer v. Evans, Lawrence v. Texas, and Goodridge v. Public Health, are clearly pointing in the same direction.
That's a pretty equivocation, but I notice that you avoided the second question entirely, which asked you to provide even ONE example in the law that would support your theory that the law can limit the rights of citizens based on gender. The fact remains that by your explanation, male citizens and female citizens do not have the SAME rights. They are similar, yes, but if a female citizen and a male citizen cannot exercise the same freedom and make the same choice for a potential partner, then their rights are not the SAME at all. In fact, the Loving decision ALSO specifically rejects this line of reasoning in the parallel argument regarding anti-miscegation...
"Thus, the State contends that, because its miscegenation statutes punish equally both the white and the Negro participants in an interracial marriage, these statutes, despite their reliance on racial classifications, do not constitute an invidious discrimination based upon race...Because we reject the notion that the mere "equal application" of a statute containing racial classifications is enough to remove the classifications from the Fourteenth Amendment's proscription of all invidious racial discriminations, we do not accept the State's contention that these statutes should be upheld if there is any possible basis for concluding that they serve a rational purpose."
As for "basic biology," that discipline also tells us that homosexuality is quite normal in the animal kingdom, and one really cannot appeal to that science and hope to defend an anti-gay position. Also, the biology of a citizen is not relevant to a citizen's right to access their fundamental human rights.
The men who wrote the Constitution never intended for women to vote or for slaves to be freed, but those were logical (and reasonably undeniable) evolutions of the basic principles they set down in the Constitution. The point really is that gay people who want to marry each other do not have to satisfy any burden of proof in order to do so. That burden lies with the Federal and State government, who have to provide a compelling interest in order to justify limiting the right of a citizen to exercise his or her fundamental rights and freedoms. To quote YOU, from another one of your blogs...
"One thing the Founding Fathers wanted to ensure was the freedom of people. As such, they didn't want the Constitution to be used to limit a person's life. The goal was to protect the people from the government. As such, they introduced this 9th Amendment. Under the Constitution, you have the right to do ANYTHING as an American Citizen, unless it is specifically prohibited by federal, state or local law. The other Amendments in the Constitution are not your only rights, which this Amendment specifies." (LINK)
The Constitution certainly doesn't "specifically prohibit" same-sex couples from getting married, and since our Supreme Court has in fact ruled that the "freedom to marry" is a "vital personal right," I think it is obvious that your position is fundamentally flawed (not to mention extremely hypocritical).
What you are describing is a direct democracy, which the United States is NOT. We are a Constitutional Republic, based on the Rule of Law. The mob may not usurp the law simply because a majority of the citizens decide that doing so would benefit them. In fact, your argument flies completely in the fact of the very Amendments that you have spent so much time blogging about. The rights and privileges enumerated in our Constitution apply to INDIVIDUALS, and no preponderance of the majority is sufficient to deprive even a single citizen of those rights barring a compelling interest of the State, rendered under heightened scrutiny.
Regulating marriage isn't "more government." Marriage originated as a legal contract, and our government has regulated it since the very beginning. Also, your comment conveniently ignores the fact that most of the new legislation relating to this issue is coming from the anti-gay side of the question, via Defense of Marriage Acts and Amendments. The pro-same-sex marriage argument is that the government should get the heck OUT of people's personal decisions. If you really adhered to the principles ***, you would have to admit that the government saying that "this adult citizen can't marry that adult citizen" is more intrusive than "we (the government) don't care who gets married so long as they are adult citizens)."
Now, I'm not a fan of the imperial federal government, either, but the simple fact is that the freedom to marry is firmly established in the legal precedents of our country as a federally protected right.
Well, since we're talking about the Bill of Rights, perhaps you should refer back to the First Amendment's prohibition of religious establishments. If your "morals" cannot be defended without appealing back to their religious basis (and they can't), then you really can't limit the freedom of a citizen based on them.
The obvious flaw in your *** argument is that not all citizens are male. Both male and female citizens are guaranteed the SAME rights and privileges under the law, and while you and I might have the the same rights at the moment, your girlfriend (if there is one) and I do not. Pick any female citizen for the comparison, and your argument completely falls apart, since she and I are not afforded the same freedom to choose our potential partners. There isn't a Bill of Rights for men and a seperate one for women, after all. Those protections are afforeded to ALL citizens, after all.
You are right ONLY in that people don't have a "right" to become U.S. citizens. However, when a statute is enacted that allows for someone to extend an offer of citizenship to their spouse, that statute must be applied to all U.S. citizens equally and absent of invidious forms of disicrimination. The argument for spousal citizenship isn't about the fact that the citizen's partner is being guaranteed the right to become a citizen, but rather the fact that the citizen is being invidiously denied a privileges that must be offered to ALL citizens equally.
A Trial Court declared that Prop. 22's gender-specifc language was unconstitutional. The Apellate Court overturned that position. The State Supreme Court hasn't made up its mind, yet. Thus, Prop. 22 is still in effect in California...i.e. it hasn't really been "thrown out" at all,
If it came across that way to you, then I apologize for the confusion. We were I think talking about different incidents. I was talking about the acts of the legislature that directly related to the issue of same-sex marriage in California, while you were talking about a referrendum that passed to prevent out-of-state marriages from being recognized in California.
***
percviale
-------------------------
"cdesign proponentsists" - (LINK)
***Comment edited for TOS violations by mvenus929 on Jan 3, 2008
Ok, so where do you draw the line? Animals? Dead people? little children?
If I have to redefine my morality in order to accomodate your sexual preference, what do you have to redefine for others?
The law is equal. You can marry anyone of the opposite gender. As far as examples? Talk to men who have gone through a divorce. Find out who, in their settlement, pays the child support. Also find out who gets general custody. With far too few exceptions, the default is to the mother.... unless you can find pictures of her at a crack party. That seems to be a discrimination based on Gender.... where are the calls for that outrage?
once again you continue with the offensive comparisons to your plight of being able to do everything but marry someone of the same gender with that of the slaves and the civil rights movement.
***
Really? Please explain the San Francisco Gun Ban and how that isn't a deprivation of rights to citizens?
Rampant BS. What I see is a REGULAR call by the pro-homosexual marrige campain, via protests, to have the government allow what it currently does not. While that is legal, and I have NO problem with such actions such as these protests, do not even TRY to attempt to say that it is all coming from the 'anti-' side. You, yourself, pointed to many bills to specifically promote homosexual marriage.
***
And, once again, your assumption is that men and women are the same. They are not. Basic biology shows you that. As such, one male and one female is NOT the same as one male and one male. It REALLY just isn't, no matter how many times you try to hide behind the civil rights movement to guarentee equal treatment of people regardless of race.
***Comment edited for TOS violations by mvenus929 on Jan 3, 2008.
I draw the line at competent adult citizens who are already qualified as individuals to enter into a marriage contract. Neither animals, nor dead people nor children can enter into binding legal contracts (duh). That's why this all-too-predictable canard is so rediculous. As an idividual, the government has already accepted that I am a valid candidate for entry into a marriage contract. My partner is likewise recognized as such under the same criteria. Since BOTH of us are already valid candidates for marriage, what rational purpose is served in saying that we can not marry each other?
You don't have to redefine YOUR "morality" at all, since no one is asking YOU to marry anyone that you don't want to. You have already admitted that your "morality" is based on your religious beliefs, and our Constitution plainly forbid enacting laws that limit the rights of citizens on religious grounds. YOUR rights end at YOUR nose, my friend, and YOUR "morality" does likewise unless you can demonstrate how MY exercise of MY rights somehow infringes upon YOURS in a real way. MY marriage to my husband would not impact you in any way, shape or form beyond the way that YOUR marriage already impacts upon me. Quid pro quo.
That isn't equal. The right in this case is the freedom to marry. If I can find two citizens who are prvented from making the SAME choice in exercising this freedom, then it isn't "equal" at all. Again, the Supreme Court has already rejected the "equal application" argument in cases of invidious marriage discrimination.
Women tend to get custody, and men tend to pay the child support, but neither of those arrangements represent a legal requirement that makes the opposite situation impossible under the law. In fact men DO sometimes get custody of the kids and women DO sometimes have to pay child support. As an interesting side-note, my last room-mate divorced his wife, got full custody of their daughter, and the court ordered her to pay him child support (though I grant that she pays less that he probably would if the situation was refersed).
That's called a straw man, and has no bearing on the question of same-sex marriage. I do however agree that gun bans of this type are an abbrogation of a basic constitutional right. But as your mother might have told you when you were young, "two wrongs do not make a right."
The B.S. here is that you think that asking the government to STOP actively prohibiting something is a call for "more government." Letting people decide for themselves whom to marry is less government. It is hilarious that you try to call yourself a "conservative" in light of your rabid pursuit of a government that actively inserts itself into the private decisions of citizens.
*rolls eyes* The recognition of ages of majority is a core concept in modern jurisprudence designed to protect very young persons from being taken advantage of before they have an opportunity to fully comprehend the exercise of their rights as adult citizens. If you don't understand the difference between an "age of majority" and "ageism," then you really aren't prepared to be having a serious discussion about the fundamental rights of citizens.
In a legal context, men and women are exactly the same. No right may be denied to citizen based on his or her gender. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 specifically applies protected status (thus directing the Court to apply heightened scrutiny) to people being discriminated against on the basis of their sex.
What does "basic biology" have to do with the legal institution of marriage? Marriage is a uniquely human invention, and has absolutely nothing to do with biology. It is a specialized form of contract, that extends certain privileges and responsibilities to the contracting parties. Nothing in that arrangement exercises ANY control whatsoever (as if it could, lol) over the biology of the parties involved.
percivale
-------------------------
"cdesign proponentsists" - (LINK)