Maggie all like, ‘Huh? What? You don’t like us voting on your rights? How weird.’

March 5, 2011 at 10:29 am 74 comments

Cross-posted at Good As You

By Jeremy Hooper

Of a certain Maryland Delegates support for a marriage referendum, Washington Post’s Jonathan Capehart said this:

[Del. Sam Arora’s] support for a voter referendum if the measure passes is unconscionable. Yes, a referendum is legal and will almost assuredly be approved in Maryland. But putting the civil rights of a minority up for a popular vote is never a good idea. In fact, it’s wrong.

Sam Arora is now for and against marriage equality [WaPo, Post Partisan blog]

Which is a not uncommon position, of course. Pro-equality voices have been saying as much for years. And in the time since Prop 8’s passage, it’s a concept that’s becoming more and more ingrained in the American vernacular. People are finally starting to realize that we don’t directly vote on civil rights in this, a country with a system of representative democracy wherein we elect lawmakers for legislative matters, while at the same time valuing a little thing called a constitution, which protects certain inalienable rights of minorities.

But leave it to Maggie Gallagher to feign confusion. She asks of Capehart’s claim:

Here’s the weirdest position of all that pro-gay marriage advocates have settled on: it’s okay for the legislature to vote on gay marriage, but “unconscionable” for the people to do so.


WaPo Columnist: Supporting a Vote by the People is “Unconscionable” [NOM Blog]

Uh, yea Maggie — it is! Because for one: The Maryland legislature is voting on a marriage equality bill, designed to remedy a short-sighted harm. This is not the same thing as a legislative marriage ban, which would also be unconscionable on merit, if not procedure. The bill on the table is designed to strengthen us as a people. To right a wrong. To shore up long-denied protections. It’s more than okay for the legislature to vote on a marriage equality bill.

And then back to the practical element: That whole public voting thing. “The public” is getting a say, through the representatives that they sent to office via fair, interval elections. This is the way it works here in the land of the free, home of the brave. We do not go to ballot boxes for the expressed purpose of picking and choosing which tax-payers get a fair shake under the law. We don’t launch largely faith-based, highly deceptive campaigns all about the supposed storm clouds that hover over certain people’s heads. We don’t limit human beings’ potential based on personal whim. We don’t deny deserved rights and/or benefits for sport. Or at least we shouldn’t. Because doing so *is* unconscionable — now, then, and always!

Entry filed under: Right-wing.

P8TT: Look What We Have Built Together Ted Olson and 3 minutes to change the world

74 Comments Add your own

  • 1. BradK  |  March 5, 2011 at 10:51 am

    A couple of things come to mind here:

    First, is there any recent polling data in Maryland to suggest how a plebiscite might actually turn out?

    Second, sooner or later NOM, et al. are going to push for a vote somewhere only find that the tide has indeed turned against the hate. This would blow their “let the people decide (your civil rights)” canard right out of the water. And that will be a beautiful day.

    • 2. Michelle Evans  |  March 5, 2011 at 11:35 am

      Yes, and on that day Maggie, et al, will step up and ask the courts and legislature to protect them from the will of the people–that is, of course, under the control of all us horrible LGBT people!

      • 3. Carpool Cookie  |  March 5, 2011 at 1:30 pm


        They will claim that, but the truth is that there would never be a majority supporting civil rights and Marriage Equlity if it was just a minority group that was in action. It is enlightened people (of all different descriptions) all across the United States who are making the numbers turn.

        I find that very heart-warming.

        • 4. Carpool Cookie  |  March 5, 2011 at 1:33 pm

          Ooops…I was trying to embolden and respond to Michelle’s “Yes, and on that day Maggie, et al, will step up and ask the courts and legislature to protect them from the will of the people–that is, of course, under the control of all us horrible LGBT people!

          but I used brackets around the b instead of the caret symbols. Brackets are what you use to give the style commands at, the other place I post!

          I also think I misread Michelle’s point, now that I look back, and we were actually saying the same thing.

          My first post of the day is sometimes a mess : (

          • 5. Bennett  |  March 5, 2011 at 4:44 pm

            that would be protection from the “activist majority” to use a phrase that you coined a few posts back, I think.

    • 6. Ed Cortes  |  March 5, 2011 at 5:43 pm

      MORE EMAILS!!!!!

  • 7. Kathleen  |  March 5, 2011 at 10:54 am

    • 8. JonT  |  March 5, 2011 at 2:34 pm

  • 9. Bob  |  March 5, 2011 at 10:56 am

    we’ll know if the public is getting a say, when the billionaires, are taxed equally as the working class,,,, when big business is no longer able to maintain the present caste system in the U.S. we’ll know the public is getting a say,,,,

    presently the class system,, billionaires in charge, arm in arm with churches,,, (capitalism/theocrazy) has been very effectively keeping the class system in place,,,,,

    it’s the power of money that presently gets representatives elected to gov’t positions,,,, the people haven’t come together effectively to overthrow that ruling authoritarian cloass,,,, but the power and momentum is building,,, the truth is becoming more vfisible…..

  • 10. John B.  |  March 5, 2011 at 11:13 am

    In that one and just about every other NOM blog post, gotta love the way they are violating copyright over and over by copying, hosting, and displaying their links and sources as pdf’s on their own website, rather than linking to the original as is the usual custom. For example this is where the link in the above blog post takes the reader:

    The really funny thing is that every time they do this, they even copy the copyright statements! Either they don’t understand the idea of copyright, or maybe they just didn’t read that far down in their sources. Or maybe they just don’t believe in that pesky “thou shalt not steal” commandment.

    • 11. John B.  |  March 5, 2011 at 11:19 am

      Heh. Just noticed they cut off p. 2 of the pdf, which is where the copyright statement was (note that the pdf is still paginated “1 of 2”). Here’s another example, let’s see if they cut off the copyright statement from this one too:

      From the above pdf, “Copyright 2011 The Associated Press and WTOP. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.”

      • 12. fiona64  |  March 5, 2011 at 11:22 am

        Do you suppose this is one of those “lying for the Lord” things I’ve read about recently?


      • 13. Don in Texas  |  March 5, 2011 at 11:28 am

        There is a “fair use” exception to copyright law.

        “[T]he fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.” — U.S. Copyright Office>/a>

        • 14. John B.  |  March 5, 2011 at 2:55 pm

          I am not a lawyer but I find it hard to believe that what they’re doing falls under “fair use” and is not infringing on the copyright of the multiple sites they’re copying. BTW the rest of the section of the Copyright law Don quotes goes on to say:

          In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include —

          (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

          (2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

          (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

          (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

  • 15. Don in Texas  |  March 5, 2011 at 11:22 am

    “The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects
    from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the
    reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal
    principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty,
    and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and
    assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote;
    they depend on the outcome of no elections.” — Justice Robert H. Jackson, West Virginia Board of Education vs. Barnette, 319 US 624-1943

    • 16. fiona64  |  March 5, 2011 at 11:23 am

      Thank you, Don. I’ll be sharing this with a certain fake lawyer in another thread.


      • 17. Don in Texas  |  March 5, 2011 at 11:35 am

        You’re most welcome, Fiona. Justice Jackson authored a couple of memorable and widely quoted observations in his opinion in the cited case.

        Not only was Jackson an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, but he also served as Attorney General of the United States and was asked by President Truman to serve as the chief prosecutor in the Nuremberg war crimes trials following World War II.

        • 18. Ray in MA  |  March 5, 2011 at 3:46 pm

          Excellent research Don. This is a keeper and should be broadcast further.

    • 19. Michelle Evans  |  March 5, 2011 at 11:40 am

      I still find it amazing how ignorant people in this country are of the way things are supposed to work. Not putting anyone’s rights up for a vote has been around for a long time, and yet they keep saying it is okay to do so–and no one calls them out on it (except in forums like this). Where are all the judges who should all in unison say you can’t vote on rights? We have had too many decisions go against us in courts to ask what the heck some of these judges are thinking. Did they miss that day in school?

      • 20. fiona64  |  March 5, 2011 at 12:44 pm

        Yep; it’s even part of Madison’s Federalist Paper No. 10.

        I suspect most of these people slept through civics class.


        • 21. Don in Texas  |  March 5, 2011 at 3:12 pm

          Thanks, Fiona. You compelled me to re-read Federalist No. 10 in which Madison writes “…measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and over-bearing majority.”

          It is this danger against which the Bill of Rights — authored by Madison — was enacted.

    • 22. Rhie  |  March 5, 2011 at 1:47 pm

      Thanks! I’ll add to my arsenal of rational quotes from important people.

  • 23. Ronnie  |  March 5, 2011 at 11:36 am

    Please somebody send this woman back to grade school….just saying…. : / ….Ronnie

  • 24. Steve  |  March 5, 2011 at 11:50 am

    “The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.”

    — Robert Jackson, West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette

    • 25. Steve  |  March 5, 2011 at 11:52 am

      Damn. Already quoted above :(

      Sorry, I only skimmed through the replies. Gah

      • 26. Ray in MA  |  March 5, 2011 at 3:48 pm

        NO sorry here. THis one deserves emphasis.

  • 27. Mark M (Seattle)  |  March 5, 2011 at 12:08 pm

    Only 99 more members each donating $50 and we’ll have the $12,000.00

    • 28. Mark M (Seattle)  |  March 5, 2011 at 12:18 pm

      Members as in ‘family members’

  • 29. Richard A. Jernigan  |  March 5, 2011 at 12:30 pm

    Okay, Maggie, dear, since you want to vote on my right to be LEGALLY, CIVILLY, and SECULARLY married to my husband, which of your rights do I get to vote on? Do I get to vote on whether you own property or are property? Do I get to vote on your right to vote? Do I get to vote on your right to determine when or even if you have a child? Do I get to vote on your right to be married to someone outside of your race? Do I get to vote on your right to be married to a man who is in prison? Do I get to vote on yor right to draft a will that states your wishes as to where your property goes when you die? Do I get to vote on your right to work?

    • 30. Carpool Cookie  |  March 5, 2011 at 2:47 pm

      Okay, Maggie, dear, since you want to vote on my right to be LEGALLY, CIVILLY, and SECULARLY married to my husband, which of your rights do I get to vote on?

      Well, since Maggie supports Bible-based laws, we might try to get her put under house-arrest in a menstrual hut once a month. Then I believe she has to burn two doves before rejoining society…though the animal rights groups might frown on that.

      • 31. Martin the Brit  |  March 6, 2011 at 3:01 am

        It’s a small price to pay, really, becuase once she’s past childbearing age she’ll no longer be eligible for ‘traditional’ marriage anyway :-/ .

  • 32. Ronnie  |  March 5, 2011 at 12:39 pm

    RI Democrat James Langevin Now Supports Marriage Equality

    Rhode Island Senator James Langevin has reversed his opinion on marriage equality. The Democrat has long supported civil unions for same-sex couples but he has now seen the discrimination and lack of fairness in that view. In an op-ed piece in today’s Providence Journal, he writes about his new stand on the issue.

    From the Journal piece:
    “Americans should be treated equally under the law, I am now convinced that affording full marriage equality rights to same-sex couples is the only fair and responsible approach for both Rhode Island and the nation….During my time as a state representative, I remember talking with my father about pending legislation to prevent discrimination based on sexual orientation, which was highly controversial at the time. While I greatly valued his thoughtful and balanced perspective, my father was certainly no social activist. He was just an ordinary man who had grown up through the civil-rights movement and always believed it was fundamentally unjust to treat people differently because of their race. When I told him I had decided to support the non-discrimination legislation, he expressed his pride in my decision because it showed that I viewed issues of fairness and justice as he did. And he was convinced that, in the same way racial discrimination became a shameful part of our history, one day our nation would look back in disbelief at a time when we denied our fellow citizens basic civil rights based on their sexual orientation. I now believe that day is within our reach.”

    “As the General Assembly considers this important topic, I ask lawmakers and all Rhode Islanders to honor our state’s founding principles of tolerance and freedom and to support marriage equality in our state. It’s time to do the right thing.”

    (me) RIGHT ON!!!!! Thank you Senator Langevin……<3…..Ronnie

  • 36. bJason  |  March 5, 2011 at 12:43 pm

    Oh Magatha, how sad to know one’s day of reckoning is nigh.

  • 37. Kate  |  March 5, 2011 at 12:58 pm

    Donation idea — if you haven’t made your donation yet, consider doing so in the name of someone else. You can do this either to honor someone, as a memorial gift, or (and this idea really makes me grin) … to add a touch of chagrin to someone’s life — somone like Karen Grube or Maggie or AgainstSSM. Just think how much they’d love knowing a gift to Courage Campain has been made in their name!

    • 38. fiona64  |  March 5, 2011 at 1:12 pm

      Ooh … this is like the Pledge-a-Picket thing for Planned Parenthood. I swear, if I had a spare time, I’d donate it in Louis Marinelli’s name (Hi, Louis! Bless your heart.)


      • 39. fiona64  |  March 5, 2011 at 1:12 pm

        Dime. Spare *dime.* Gah.

        • 40. fiona64  |  March 5, 2011 at 1:17 pm

          I managed to shuffle a couple of things around and make a small donation. Wish it could have been more.


          • 41. Kate  |  March 5, 2011 at 6:08 pm

            In Louis’s name???? I love it!!!!

      • 42. Kate  |  March 5, 2011 at 1:15 pm

        Yeah! It’s like “Pick-Your-Favorite Bigot” and donate in their name. Of course, they need to be advised of said donation and thanked.

        • 43. Kate  |  March 5, 2011 at 1:25 pm

          Just think of what all the donations Courage Campaign could receive in the name of the Westboro Baptist Church. And just THINK of how pissed all the Phelps folks would be!

          • 44. Reformed Conservative  |  March 6, 2011 at 10:18 am

            The Westboro Baptist Church is one of our closest allies in a weird sort of way. Kinda a like a impotent virus that triggers a desirable immune response against hate and intolerance in the larger society.

            Couple of interesting things about these folks. Shirly Phelps is married to her brother so she knows a thing or two about slipery slopes.

            Fred attended Bob Jones University in Greenville South Carolina, something I know a thing or two about, being a graduate. (Thus my alter ego handle, but hey y’all just the same.)

          • 45. Straight Dave  |  March 6, 2011 at 4:12 pm

            @ Reformed Conservative
            This slipped by me earlier, but I don’t recall seeing you around these parts before. If you’re a new poster, welcome aboard!
            Your choice of words, “one of our closest allies “, suggests some familiarity and I wonder if you’ve been a regular lurker.

            Reel free to open up a bit. It’s very safe here and we love new members, regardless of historical associations.

          • 46. Straight Dave  |  March 6, 2011 at 4:18 pm

            …and I agree with your WBC theory. I’m sure they must scare some people away from being even remotely associated with what they’re preaching.

          • 47. bJason  |  March 6, 2011 at 4:28 pm

            Reformed Conservative,

            I used to own a restaurant in Greenville, SC. The BJU is scary (but the boys were cute and lots of fun). When did you graduate? May-haps we were in the area at the same time. I was in Greenville from 1995 to 2000 (in Spartanburg for 10 years before that – Wofford grad, myself).

            Love your virus/immune response analogy on WBC and couldn’t agree with you more! Kind of feel the same way about NOM, FRC, etc. to a degree.

            I join Straight Dave (one of our best allies and friends) in welcoming you to our little corner of the world. It is a great place to be!

            <3 Jason

  • 48. Sagesse  |  March 5, 2011 at 1:24 pm

    MG, out there on a very slim tether. Scissors?

  • 49. Rhie  |  March 5, 2011 at 1:33 pm


  • 50. Sagesse  |  March 5, 2011 at 1:43 pm

    ““It’s a funny thing about change, it moves slowly until it doesn’t,” said GOP strategist John Weaver.”

    Love the quote. Article about the possible marriage equality vote in NH next year coinciding with the NH primary.

    New Hampshire gay-marriage debate puts 2012 hopefuls on spot

  • 51. JPM  |  March 5, 2011 at 2:06 pm

    Support marriage equality in Maryland via Twitter.

    Ask Lady Gaga to help!

  • 52. Rhie  |  March 5, 2011 at 2:44 pm – what is this I don’t even

    Wow. They are getting paranoid.

    • 53. Mark M (Seattle)  |  March 5, 2011 at 3:34 pm

      Conspiracy theory much :-)

    • 54. Sagesse  |  March 5, 2011 at 4:18 pm

      Posted this a few days ago… article, not the link. Haven’t heard or seen anything about it since.

      • 55. Mark M (Seattle)  |  March 5, 2011 at 4:21 pm

        Hmmmmm…must have missed your post.
        Let us know if you hear anything

  • 56. Don in Texas  |  March 5, 2011 at 3:19 pm

    “You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a
    reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating
    the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the great struggle
    for independence.” — Attributed to Charles Austin Beard (1874-1948)

  • 57. Ronnie  |  March 5, 2011 at 3:19 pm

    Man Protests Gay Inequality and Gets Out of Jury Duty

    Model, actor and singer Jonathan D. Lovitz found himself excused from jury duty in New York this past week because he voiced his concern that, given that he, a gay man, is made a second class citizen by the state denying him the right to marry and adopt, he could not judge another citizen impartially.

    “Just had an intense day at jury duty. During voir dire we were asked who would not be impartial. I raised my hand and said “since I can’t get married or adopt a child in the state of New York, I can’t possibly be an impartial judge of a citizen when I am considered a second class one in the eyes of this justice system.” You wouldn’t believe how people in the room reacted.”

    (me) More of this…We need more of this!!!!…..”NO JUSTICE, NO PEACE!!!!”…..<3….Ronnie

    • 58. Carpool Cookie  |  March 6, 2011 at 12:04 pm

      I want to hear more about the “You can’t believe how the people in the room reacted” part!

  • 59. Ronnie  |  March 5, 2011 at 3:32 pm

    Anti-gay violence advocates are flooding the Sam Arora facebook page….

    All of them are members of NOM

    -Nick Morality Jones – obsessed with AIDS & fecal matter
    -Alissa Miller – advocates putting all LGBT people in prison & forcing all Americans to be Christian
    -James Lunaburg – has threatened me in the past & have called me derogatory names I will not repeat
    – Serena Nino – a sociopath “ex-gay” from Upper Darby, Pa. has also threatened me in the past.
    -Rick Vee – advocated throwing all LGBT in prison & physically forcing them to be heterosexual

    These are NOM followers. They are ALL members of NOM’s Facebook page….. > I ….Ronnie

    • 60. Ronnie  |  March 5, 2011 at 3:37 pm

      Bonnie Parker is also a known Facebook troll with at least 10 FB accounts & is also a member of NOM’s facebook page that has said the U.S. government should ship all homosexuals to Uganda on NOM’s page…I have screenshots.

      I have screenshot of all of these people…. > I ….Ronnie

    • 61. Ronnie  |  March 5, 2011 at 5:09 pm

      Well, the majority of their comments & posts have been deleted….I reported all of them….got screenshots first…….NOM followers = FAIL… sad….. : / ….Ronnie

      • 62. Carpool Cookie  |  March 6, 2011 at 12:07 pm

        Oh dear. Sorry you were exposed to them : (

        • 63. Ronnie  |  March 12, 2011 at 7:25 am

          It’s all good…I handled the situation by blocking the more vile ones….but I’m sorry he has to be exposed to them….He needs to put someone as an admin of his page or do something….. <3…Ronnie

  • 64. Owen  |  March 5, 2011 at 3:42 pm

    Election news:

    Colleen Hanabusa (pro-equality) and Mufi Hanneman (anti-equality, doesn’t even support civil unions) are possible candidates for the Democratic nomination in Hawaii’s U.S. Senate race. They’ll be vying for a shot at long-time Senator Daniel Akaka’s vacated seat, if they choose to run.

    I think it’s imperative that Hanabusa, or someone else with pro-equality views, win the election. Our best hope for progress is that the new Democratic Senators who replace the old guard are for equality.

    • 65. Maggie4NoH8  |  March 8, 2011 at 12:18 pm

      I used to live in Hawaii… Mufi Hanneman was elected the mayor of the city/county of Honolulu and was a disaster.

      He quit the mayorship to run for governor against Abercrombie and lost – hopefully, he will not get far in his Senate bid either.

      I suspect he’s just interested in the financial benefits (since he is no longer employed)…

  • 66. Straight Dave  |  March 5, 2011 at 6:11 pm

    OT: Hi to you too, bJason! Sorry I missed you on the other thread today – I was out all afternoon. I’m glad you still show up as one of the regulars. Rest assured I definitely count you in the friend category, along with the rest of this amazing community/family/team. 14 months ago I never had any expectations that thing would follow the path is has.

    <3 to all (Copyright Ronnie)

    • 67. bJason  |  March 6, 2011 at 6:07 am

      As I said to Fiona in the other thread, we could not win this without our allies! I will never be able to thank you all enough for standing with us in this quest!

      <3 Jason

  • 68. Ronnie  |  March 5, 2011 at 6:29 pm

    The youth of the world are speaking out & demanding that their voices be heard….they want Equality NOW!!!!

    Teen Actor Avan Jogia Says Its OK For Men To Like Men

    19yo Actor & Straight Ally, Avan Jogia, has co-founded a new social awareness organization called “Straight But Not Narrow”.

    Quote from the actor:
    “We are a group of men talking to men about men who like men and how men should be ok with your man friends liking men. it doesn’t make you any less of a man or make it look like you’re into men if you’re friends with a man who likes men.”


    • 69. Mark M (Seattle)  |  March 6, 2011 at 10:42 am

      That’s so great! In 1993 when Robert and I went to DC for the civil rights march, there was a wonderful group of guys along the parade route…..big banners ‘Straight But NOT Narrow’. I ran over and gave several of them big hugs.
      That is one of my favorite memories of that event….than and spitting on Fred Phelps :-)

      • 70. Mark M (Seattle)  |  March 6, 2011 at 10:51 am

        Should have been….
        ….that and spitting on Fred Phelps

  • 71. Shelly & Simie  |  March 6, 2011 at 10:29 am

    It’s about damn time someone told this woman where she is lol. Is she even going 2 c this?? I wrote a email 2 Brian Brown 2 try 2 get some answers last week but got no response i guess he knows he is not changing this couples view lmao. Hope u r all doin well hang in there!!!

  • 72. Sagesse  |  March 6, 2011 at 4:27 pm

    Speaking, as we were a few threads back, of Santorum. Nausea alert.

    Guest column: Forefathers fought for religious freedom

  • 73. Joe  |  March 7, 2011 at 5:10 pm

    “Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual).” -Ayn Rand

  • 74. Rhie  |  March 9, 2011 at 12:29 pm

    Ayn Rand said something sensible! Wow!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed

Support the Prop 8 Trial Tracker

Connect with us

Get to know your fellow Prop 8 Trial Trackers on Facebook.

Please send tips to

Follow us on Twitter @EqualityOnTrial

Sign-up for updates on the Prop 8 trial, including breaking-news alerts.


TWITTER: Follow us @EqualityOnTrial

Share this

Bookmark and Share

SITE STATS (by Wordpress)

  • 4,585,331 views of the Tracker and counting as of today...