Friday LGBT round-up

March 18, 2011 at 10:14 am 70 comments

By Adam Bink

A few Friday items of interest:

  • Conventional wisdom that college is a place of same-sex experimentation for women may be wrong, according to a new study.
  • On today’s new poll showing 53% of Americans support same-sex marriage, Joe over at AMERICABlog Gay is right to point to what the President told Joe in an interview awhile back:

The one thing I will say today is I think it’s pretty clear where the trendlines are going. -Barack Obama

No doubt. When will the President follow them?

  • David Badash has some cross-tabs on this morning’s news, including a 20+ point jump in support among Catholics.
  • On the right-winger watch, speaking of AMERICABlog, their list of the 95 biggest homophobes in the House. And a report from the Associated Press that Newt Gingrich funneled six figures into the fight to recall Iowa judges. Iowans and those interested in traveling to work around the caucus, take note.
  • Jeremy notes Maggie Gallagher’s taunt that for the new poll out this morning, LGBT supporters don’t want to put marriage on the ballot in Rhode Island. To this, I reply with conservative Ted Olson’s rejoinder that perhaps FOX News’ right to free speech — and Maggie’s — should be put on the ballot. There’s a question for Arisha on the next bus tour ‘o #FAIL.
  • I may have mentioned this before, but I find P8TT friend Karen Ocamb’s guest op-ed series (updated almost daily with a new op-ed) on what should come next for Equality California as they search for a new ED to be a really interesting read. If you’re an LGBT Californian, or are interested in improving organizations and their dynamics around leadership and focus, you’ll want to read it. It is being produced by Syd Peterson at LGBTPOV.
  • Like these ronud-ups and other news? If you haven’t chipped in the cost of your beer or maybe slice o’ pie tonight to keep us going, you can do so here. We just passed $9K.
  • “Curing” gay people? There’s an app for that. More here.
  • I wrote here about my hometown state Senator Mark Grisanti getting called out by Lady Gaga around marriage. Apparently it didn’t work, as Grisanti said he doesn’t believe in changing a term that’s been used for thousands of years, since it’s like calling a cat, a dog. Great.
  • Speaking of New York, if you’re a resident, major action needed to avoid serious funding cuts that keep LGBT kids on the street. Last weekend when I was at the Haas conference in SF, Carl from the Ali Forney Center explained how there are about 200 beds for over 1,000 kids who sleep on the street. Now, there may be less because of funding cuts. URGENT action to contact Gov. Cuomo. It’ll take you about 5 minutes.
  • For North Carolinians like Richard Walter-Jernigan, Pam Spaulding has a call to action with lots of to-do’s what you can do to fight the marriage amendment. And if you don’t want to read, this adorable guy will break it down for you!
  • It is set to break 70 degrees here in DC for the first time in a long time, so I’m BBQing with some friends on a rooftop tonight. What are your weekend plans?

Entry filed under: Community/Meta.

New nationwide poll finds 53% of Americans support same-sex marriage Hoyer will urge speedy implementation on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal

70 Comments Add your own

  • 1. Alan E.  |  March 18, 2011 at 10:20 am

    Conventional wisdom that college is a place of same-sex experimentation for women may be wrong, according to a new study.

    Huh. So more schooling = less experimentation. Funny how studies can show that what we think we know may not actually be true.

    • 2. AnonyGrl  |  March 18, 2011 at 1:23 pm

      “URGENT action to contact Gov. Cuomo…”

      I’m on it!

    • 3. Rhie  |  March 18, 2011 at 1:39 pm

      I am curious how that got started.

  • 4. Michelle Evans  |  March 18, 2011 at 10:20 am

    Our plans include leaving in a few minutes to talk with a group of high school students on LGBT issues. Later this evening, Cherie and I will be at our support group, TG Rainbow.

    Over the weekend itself, hopefully I’ll just have some quiet time to sit and write more on my book. Third chapter will hopefully be done and off to the editor by the end of the month.

    • 5. Kathleen  |  March 18, 2011 at 10:28 am

      Saw your wonderful video with Cherie and shared it on my facebook page yesterday. Thank you so much for doing that. Has that been shared here at P8TT?

      • 6. Michelle Evans  |  March 18, 2011 at 10:56 am

        Thanks Kathleen. I posted the link on the other thread this morning, but will also add it here if anyone would like to see it.

        • 7. Straight for Equality  |  March 18, 2011 at 11:38 am

          What a great video! I am glad that now I can put a face to the name Michelle Evans when I her read postings.

          • 8. Felyx  |  March 18, 2011 at 4:58 pm

            State mandated marriage annulment?

            How is this not PATENTLY ILLEGAL!!!!!

            Disgusting… makes me ashamed to be an American!

            What did they want you to do? Get divorced so that you could get remarried? If you had tried to marry without divorcing the state would not have remarried you… DISGUSTING AND OUTRAGEOUS!!!

            Pardon me when I get vehement and scream, ‘GET THOSE SICK LEGISLATORS OUT OF OFFICE!!!’

            As for Maggie, Brian and their ilk… I would not let them lick my dog’s *** if it meant saving their pitiful lives!!!

            (Sorry for the righteous outrage… I guess I just had a moment there.)

            Love to Michelle and Cherie.

        • 9. bJason  |  March 18, 2011 at 3:53 pm

          Michelle and Cherie,
          Thank you for sharing your beautiful love with the world. Thank you for your perspectives here. LGBs CANNOT leave Ts behind. My fight isn’t over until your fight is over, too!

          Thanks, also, for showing yet another cruel aspect of Prop 8 and discrimination in general. We WILL win this.

          • 10. Michelle Evans  |  March 19, 2011 at 1:20 am

            I know it’s late, but wanted to jump back on and thank my friends here for the wonderful comments about our video. Glad I didn’t scare anyone off with the video as I’m anything but photogentic. :-) Cherie and I have been out all day, so this is the first chance I’ve had to check back in.

            And to Felyx, thank you for your outrage. Yes, we are obviously outraged about all this too. We keep hoping for Prop 8 and DOMA to fall into the pits of the abyss where they belong so no one can take away our marriage–or anyone else’s either!!

          • 11. Felyx  |  March 19, 2011 at 5:33 am

            The State of California owes you an apology! Only NOM, FRC and the wackos would cry marriage foul while forcing divorces!

            As for photogenic… I think we all saw the love and the beauty! Contrast that with (so-called) beauty pageant Sarah Palin and I think we all know who would win here!!!!

  • 12. Alan E.  |  March 18, 2011 at 10:25 am

    I like the round-up, but make it once a week if you continue it please. A single, inclusive post allows the opportunity to post more about other LGBT items without flooding more “other” posts than Prop 8 posts.

    • 13. adambink  |  March 18, 2011 at 10:41 am

      I generally do round-ups on interesting tidbits of news about which I don’t have a great deal to say, but thought folks find interesting. But I really only do it on a once a week basis, if that. Last few weeks haven’t done any of them, I think. Thanks for the feedback, of course.

      • 14. PoxyHowzes  |  March 19, 2011 at 6:36 pm

        Hey, Adam: Your “roundup” posts are a wonderful service to this (almost) daily reader, helping me at a minimum to make sure I haven’t missed anything, and if I have, providing me with a quick entry point to what I missed.

        Without this week’s roundup post, I would have missed Ted Olsen’s brilliant lecture to the 9th circuit (thanks, always and ever to Kathleen!) and “reference for the rest of us”

        Without this week’s roundup post, I’d have had to discover the “lesbian coed” study eleswise or else have remained “conventionally ignorant,” making me that much more poorly informed and that much less effective in discussions with my friends and enemies.

        Without this week’s post, I’d either be uninformed about New York (too busy), or else searching desultorily in idle moments. (NYS is where I grew up, but I haven’t had any real connections to it for decades, now. Doesn’t stop me from being interested!

        So, Adam, please: Raise the ’roundup’ on your priorities list, OR farm it out, OR hire someone(s) to do it.

        • 15. PoxyHowzes  |  March 19, 2011 at 6:52 pm

          And another point:

          As more and more of us str8 folks get on board, the LGBT (etc) community is going to need internet places where a not-so-passionate supporter can go for a quick update and to get fired up occasionally.

          Your weekly roundup could (continue) to serve that purpose. It could serve to link to specific, small-ish, focused news items, like Constance McMillen’s (sp?) proms, for example, where str8’s who are mildly supportive can be informed, and perhaps persuaded to act.

  • 16. Sagesse  |  March 18, 2011 at 10:33 am

    Scribin’ to catch up later.

    • 17. JonT  |  March 18, 2011 at 6:10 pm

  • 18. rick jacobs  |  March 18, 2011 at 10:48 am

    I get that we want this site for P8 stuff, but I have to say I really like Adam’s round up. This one really helped catch me up.

    As for weekend plans, Shaun and I are on the plane to NYC. We’ll see friends in Brooklyn tonight, friends (and supporters–you know who you are!) elsewhere on Long Island tomorrow and Sunday, then Monday night we help celebrate and honor Tom Kirdahy, who is feted by the NY LGBT center for his years of service. Tom probably does not know that this just means he gets to give years more of service, which he does selflessly.

    DC for the day on Wednesday and now to NYC. Maybe I’ll stay home next week.

  • 19. Fluffyskunk  |  March 18, 2011 at 11:05 am

    “A lot of data shows that women’s sexuality is more hetero-flexible, more influenced by what they see around them,” Professor Diamond said.

    In the past, she said, a women with a single homosexual relationship would have been labeled gay, and urged to accept that identity. But now there is a growing sense that a lesbian relationship need not define a woman.

    “It’s becoming more acceptable, at least in some parts of society, to see your gender identity as fluid,” said Joan Westreich, a Manhattan therapist. “I see women whose first loves were women, who then meet and fall in love with a guy, and for whom it seems to be relatively conflict-free.”

    Yes, this is called BISEXUALITY. And again with the same old nonsense about women’s “sexuality being more fluid” than men’s. This is gender-essentialist bullshit. The reason men are less likely to experience “fluidity” is because they face loss of male privilege and permanent consignment to the status of f–t if they ever stray from the straight and narrow path (you know how they say patriarchy hurts men too? This is one example of that.) Whereas for women, well, it’s hard to lose a privilege you never had to begin with. There isn’t much of a social pressure to not be a lesbian the way there is on men to not be a f–t. I wish these studies would take that into account.

  • 24. Kathleen  |  March 18, 2011 at 11:15 am

    Here’s a good addition to the round-up for people in CT .

    On Monday, Mar 21, there will be a public hearing in Hartford, CT for HB 6599: An Act Concerning Discrimination. This act will add gender identity and gender expression to CT non-discrimination law.

    More information at CT Equality’s website.

    There is information there to help prepare you for effective testimony, in case you’ve never done this before.

    There’s also a facebook event page set up, for those of you on facebook:

  • 25. Richard A. Jernigan  |  March 18, 2011 at 12:40 pm

    My weekend plans include a Scentsy Stop and Sniff open house at home tomorrow, lunch at my mother-in-law’s on Sunday, and getting ready for my next lesson in my Wilton cake decorating class. In short, fun times with family and friends, including talking about why full equality for LGBT’s is so important.

  • 26. gaydadtobe  |  March 18, 2011 at 12:42 pm

    Just saw this tweeted by Ellen DeGeneres:

    It’s a thin line….

  • 27. fiona64  |  March 18, 2011 at 1:20 pm

    Assuming the tornado continues to move through (I am not making this up), my plans for tomorrow consist of going to a bookstore on Castro Street to hear Angie Bowie (yes, that Angie Bowie …) do a reading and have her sign a book. Angie is an awesome ally for LGBT people and underdogs/outsiders of any sort … and an all-around good person.


    • 28. Rhie  |  March 18, 2011 at 1:54 pm

      Sounds like a fun weekend. I hope you come through the storm OK.

      Adam, I really like these roundups!

    • 29. adambink  |  March 18, 2011 at 2:52 pm

      Hey, that sounds fun. Which bookstore?

      Thanks, Rhie.

      • 30. fiona64  |  March 18, 2011 at 3:40 pm

        A Different Light, at 1 PM. :-)


        • 31. fiona64  |  March 21, 2011 at 3:48 pm

          I wound up not going; for those who don’t know, there were horrific storms (including hail) all of the Bay Area on Saturday. :-(


          • 32. Gregory in Salt Lake City  |  March 22, 2011 at 8:58 am

            I can vouch for the “exciting” weather as was in the bay area this weekend for a cold “spring break” trip. Fiona: I didn’t read that you had intended to be at the bookstore until after trip. Since you didn’t end up going I felt a little less disappointed as would have been fun to meet up there as I had your book in my backpack and would have been a THRILL to have you autograph it! Here are a couple of photos of the weather:


          • 33. fiona64  |  March 22, 2011 at 9:09 am

            Now I’m doubly sorry I didn’t make it. It would have been great to meet you and your hubby (you are both so cute!!).


          • 34. Gregory in Salt Lake City  |  March 22, 2011 at 9:12 am


            p.s. – it was AMAZING trying to drive over the Sierra Nevada Mountains going back…very beautiful, yet treacherous.

  • 35. Kathleen  |  March 18, 2011 at 2:21 pm

    UPDATE: Mass DOMA cases

    Joint Proposal Regarding Further Proceedings

    • 36. JPM  |  March 18, 2011 at 3:56 pm

      In the Army, it’s “hurry up and wait.”

      In the Courts, it’s “1. Wait. 2. Wait some more. 3. Goto 1”

    • 37. bJason  |  March 18, 2011 at 4:28 pm

      From the Joint Proposal…

      The Executive Branch respectfully requests that these cases beheld in abeyance for 45 days, until May 2, 2011, to allow sufficient time for theBipartisan Legal Advisory Group to determine the nature of its participation, to retainprivate counsel if it so desires and to make its views known through its own counseldirectly to this Court.


      On or before April 22, 2011, the BipartisanLegal Advisory Group shall file a motion in this Court indicating the manner in whichit seeks to participate in this litigation. The appellees and cross-appellant consent toholding these proceedings in abeyance for 45 days but reserve all rights and take noposition at this time with respect to the matters set forth in Paragraphs 1-3 above. Onor before May 2, 2011, the parties – in consultation with the House Bipartisan LegalAdvisory Group – will propose a schedule for further proceedings.

      Of course, MORE FRACKIN’ TIME!!!!

      Thanks, Kathleen (now on to the Perry thingy)

    • 38. Straight Dave  |  March 18, 2011 at 6:11 pm

      Here’s an interesting remark in the Joint Proposal:

      In several other cases in which the Executive Branch has taken the position that an Act of Congress is unconstitutional. … the Solicitor General has taken appropriate steps in such cases to invoke Supreme Court
      jurisdiction in order to provide an opportunity for full judicial consideration of the constitutional question.

      Does this imply that this case could get bumped straight up to SCOTUS, or that previous ones have? That would be a nice shortcut, since it was going to end up there, anyway.

      • 39. Kathleen  |  March 18, 2011 at 6:27 pm

        I read it to speak to the question we’ve posed before: If the Appeals Court rules for the Plaintiffs, can the Executive Branch remain a party for purposes of appealing that decision, given that it wouldn’t disagree with the decision?

        It’s hard for me to understand how it can, given the requirement for a “case or controversy” but this statement suggests that that is precisely what happened in those cases mentioned. I intend to look up the cases, but haven’t had time yet.

        Of course, this isn’t an issue if Congress can establish its own independent Article III standing, but there’s some question as to whether it can.

      • 40. Straight Dave  |  March 20, 2011 at 5:53 pm

        Re: Handling laws the Gov’t agrees are unconstitutional, like DOMA:

        I looked up one of the cited cases, INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983). My interpretation of the following excepts is that:
        1. The Gov’t can appeal a judgment it agrees with, if a law is being declared unconstitutional.
        2. Congress has the authority, by law, to defend challenges to laws it passed, if the executive branch declines to.

        Here’s the parts of the SCOTUS opinion I base my conclusions on, from

        “28 U.S.C. § 1252, which provides that “[a]ny party” may appeal to the Supreme Court from a judgment of “any court of the United States” holding an Act of Congress unconstitutional in “any civil action, suit, or proceeding” to which the United States or any of its agencies is a party.”

        “for purposes of deciding whether the INS was “any party” within the grant of appellate jurisdiction in § 1252, the INS was sufficiently aggrieved by the Court of Appeals’ decision prohibiting it from taking action it would otherwise take. An agency’s status as an aggrieved party under § 1252 is not altered by the fact that the Executive may agree with the holding that the statute in question is unconstitutional. Pp. 462 U. S. 929-931.”

        “there was adequate Art. III adverseness even though the only parties were the INS and Chadha. The INS’s agreement with Chadha’s position does not alter the fact that the INS would have deported him absent the Court of Appeals’ judgment. ”

        This seems to be saying that there is still a controversy over actions being taken, since the law is still being enforced, even though there may not be a philosophical controversy.

        In one of the current DOMA cases, OPM is the aggrieved party and DOJ is providing their defense. Even though DOJ will not “defend DOMA”, they can still appeal because OPM is being forced to do something different than its default action of enforcing the law.

        Even though both parties may tell SCOTUS they think the law is unconstitutional, SCOTUS will still have its own opinion and may disagree. But at least this process does force a definitive and respectable conclusion to be reached.

        Last quote from the opinion, re Congress:
        Congress is the proper party to defend the validity of a statute when a Government agency, as a defendant charged with enforcing the statute, agrees with plaintiffs that the statute is unconstitutional. Pp. 462 U. S. 939-940.

        That sounds like the Article III standing we have been wondering about.

        • 41. Straight Dave  |  March 20, 2011 at 5:55 pm

          Ignore the botched italics above. I hope it’s clear from the context what is a direct quote and what is my own commentary.

        • 42. Kathleen  |  March 20, 2011 at 6:13 pm

          Straight Dave, I started to look at that case yesterday and there are some other things I want to look up before untangling it all, but it looked like there might be some ways in which that situation differed from the what’s going on with DOMA. But a full analysis is going to have to be done another day – one when I’m not quite as out of it as I am today. Please remind me if I forget to come back to it.

  • 43. Kathleen  |  March 18, 2011 at 4:15 pm

    A new amicus brief has been filed in the Perry case. There are some unusual circumstances for this particular party, so I suspect the Court was willing to bend the rules on the filing deadline. :)

    Amicus brief of Gary William Hallford in support of Plaintiffs.

    • 44. Alan E.  |  March 18, 2011 at 4:38 pm

      I thought it was well written and very succinct. Surprising source of support =)

    • 45. bJason  |  March 18, 2011 at 4:45 pm

      Most interesting. A straight prison inmate (apparent, lay-person) arguing to the court that Prop 8 is unconstitutional.

      “In reference to the Ninth Amendment, I personally can find no legitimate authority to ban the contractual agreements between two consenting adults who happen to be homosexual. To preclude two consenting adults from forging the marriage contract (with all the rights and responsibilities therein…), but allow them to sell property to one another, or rent property to each other, or for one to hire the services of the other, contraindicates any perception of ‘equal protection’ (as noted in 14th Amendment)…”

      Never really thought about it in exactly that way. Good on you, Mr. Hallford!

    • 46. Gregory in Salt Lake City  |  March 22, 2011 at 11:46 am

      got around to reading this and glad I did. I was moved by this straight ally from the Folsom Prison. Thank you for posting!

      Though I am heterosexual, have innumerable friends who are members of the LGBT community,and have witnessed the vagaries discrimination they face.Furthermore,a United States citizen has an inherent responsibility to work to protect For the foregoing reasons, the rights of others,and as Thomas Jefferson so deftly noted……… If we are to LEAD BY EXAMPLE” we must, to allow anyone’s persecution,be willing to persecute. I refuse to follow that ideology,and therefore compassionately AGREE WITH THE PLAINTIFFS and ask this Court to rule accordingly.

  • 47. Sagesse  |  March 18, 2011 at 7:03 pm

    Progress in NC

    Study revels same-sex marriage support on rise across the state

    • 48. BBrown  |  March 18, 2011 at 7:12 pm

      That is a LIE!!! It’s absurd.
      The only poll that counts is a free and fair vote on the part of the people.

      The people of this country have not changed their opinion about marriage.

      • 49. Sagesse  |  March 18, 2011 at 7:46 pm


      • 50. fiona64  |  March 21, 2011 at 3:49 pm

        Obvious troll is obvious …

        And boring.

  • 51. Sagesse  |  March 18, 2011 at 7:11 pm

    Moves to stop deportations for bi-national couples.

    Immigration Org: Stop Deportations

  • 52. Maggie  |  March 18, 2011 at 7:17 pm

    Not even the gay rights folks believe that new poll. If the majority of Americans now support gay marriage, why is the gay rights lobby vigorously opposing a proposal to refer the question to an open vote of the people of Rhode Island?

    The answer given in the Warwick Beacon yesterday was: because they are afraid they will lose.

    In Rhode Island. One of the most Democratic states in the nation.

    What does that say about public opinion elsewhere?

    • 53. Tony Douglass In Ca  |  March 18, 2011 at 8:15 pm

      You forgot your scare quotes!!

      • 54. Zak  |  March 18, 2011 at 9:52 pm

        Gawd, I can hear her in my head whenever I read her words. In my head, she sounds like Roseane Barr.

        • 55. Kate  |  March 19, 2011 at 8:03 am

          She does in my head, too! I didn’t know others heard that too; she even looks a bit like Roseanne.

    • 56. Ronnie  |  March 19, 2011 at 7:41 am

      Because you DO NOT put people’s rights up to a public vote filled with personal biases & flat out selfishness….PAY ATTENTION!!!!….. > / …..Ronnie

  • 57. Sagesse  |  March 18, 2011 at 7:19 pm

    Colorado Civil Unions Move Forward

  • 58. Sagesse  |  March 18, 2011 at 7:25 pm

    Harkin Backs Gronstal in Iowa Marriage Showdown

  • 59. Sagesse  |  March 18, 2011 at 7:29 pm

    And in not-at-all-happy news

    Brooklyn Man Battered in Hate Crime

  • 60. Sagesse  |  March 18, 2011 at 7:40 pm

    Seems Newt Gingrich funneled even more money into Iowa campaign to oust judges

    Newt Gingrich Secretly Funneled $350,000 To Anti-Gay Hate Groups Last Year

  • 61. Sagesse  |  March 18, 2011 at 7:53 pm

    Accelerate repeal of ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’

  • 66. Sagesse  |  March 19, 2011 at 6:04 am

    Maybe Family Leader will be designated a hate group

    Ousted Judge Roy Moore Claims Gay Marriage Leads To Child Abuse

  • 67. Ginger  |  March 19, 2011 at 9:00 am

    Re: Homophobic apps in the Apple store

    Apple’s new CEO is an openly gay man. I wonder how that figures into this new Exodus app and the anti-marriage folks’ screaming about the Manhattan Declaration.

    That’s the problem with letting teh gays think they have the right to be out and open in society – they get into positions of power, and then start making decisions that make it harder and harder to keep discriminating. I mean, how can we expect Apple to be neutral on marriage if their own CEO is gay? No more gay CEOs!

    Honestly, I’m surprised I haven’t heard this argument yet. I keep waiting for it to pop up. Maggie et al. act like private corporations don’t have a right to protect the interests of their employees and executives.

  • 68. Eric  |  March 19, 2011 at 9:24 am

    The fastest way to get the Exodus International app pulled from the App Store is to complain to Apple about the app’s rating and its content.

    For example, the Student Blog section of the app has articles on masturbation, sex, and pornography. Not topics that warrant a 4+ rating.

    The rating is done by the developer, not Apple. But Apple will pull apps and pull them quickly if the developer does not rate them appropriately.

    Here are instructions on how to file a complaint with Apple:

    • 69. Alan E.  |  March 19, 2011 at 10:48 am

      Utilize the religious right’s rhetoric against them. If this were any other app, they would be up in arms for the access to such topics. I read through the student section, and I just was dying from laughter at the stupidity of it all.

  • 70. Ronnie  |  March 21, 2011 at 11:38 am

    Lady Gaga’s acceptance video for the Randy Shilts Visibility Award from the 2011 SLDN Dinner……<3….Ronnie:


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)

  • 4,585,324 views of the Tracker and counting as of today...