http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/03/iowa.same.sex/index.html

Quote :

"Iowa high court strikes down same-sex marriage ban # Story Highlights # NEW: "This is a great day for civil rights in Iowa," Lambda Legal attorney says # Iowa joins Massachusetts and Connecticut in allowing same-sex marriages # Decision upholds 2007 ruling by lower court that said ban stigmatized gay couples # Debate rages in New England as two state legislatures consider the issue"

Vermont's legislator passed a law allowing gay marriage last night, now all that is left is to see if the Gov will veto it as he promised. The vote was pretty close to being able to override a veto, but not quite there. However, there are some legislators who wouldn't vote for gay marriage, but don't like the gov vetoing the legislator & will switch sides to override a veto... so we're going to have to wait and see how that turns out.

http://pamshouseblend.com/diary/10218/the-iowa-supreme-court-decision

Quote :

"Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Robert B. Hanson, Judge. Defendant appeals from district court summary judgment ruling holding state statute limiting civil marriage to a union between a man and a woman unconstitutional. AFFIRMED. (CNN) -- The Iowa Supreme Court unanimously rejected a state law Friday that banned same-sex marriage, and opponents wasted little time in pushing for a state constitutional amendment that could send the issue to voters."

I wonder how all this will play out in influencing CA. I also wonder if Iowa's decision will change the minds of any legislators who were on the fence, and/or get the gov to reconsider his veto decision.

[Edited on April 3, 2009 at 2:23 PM. Reason : .]

4/3/2009 2:01:02 PM

Vermont is going about it in the wrong way. Don't put in a bill to allow it, do what Iowa did and say it is unconstitutional to ban it, therefor allowing it by default.

4/3/2009 2:11:59 PM

Quote :

"Vermont is going about it in the wrong way. Don't put in a bill to allow it, do what Iowa did and say it is unconstitutional to ban it, therefor allowing it by default."

Look, I'm all for marriage equality (particularly in the sense that I'd rather see the government out of the marriage business altogether), but how exactly is relying on the courts to trump the legislature, and through it, the democratic process an inherently "superior" approach? If anything, it seems like it galvanizes opposition - the idea that the courts are dictating laws to the people, rather than laws being made by their representatives.

Again, I welcome the day when things like this become a non-issue. But cramming it down peoples' respective throats doesn't seem like the way to build widespread tolerance or consensus.

4/3/2009 2:16:44 PM

For my money I'm okay with civil rights/equality coming from any branch of government, and I have no problem with judges saying majorities don't always get to make decisions on minority rights.

It strikes me as amusing when some republicans say that it should come from the legislature instead of the judicial branch, but then when it does it is republican gov's that veto it (Arnold did in CA, Douglas plans to in VT)

4/3/2009 2:26:51 PM

^^It doesn't need to come from the courts. The legislature should write a bill keeping themselves from meddling in the business of marriage.

4/3/2009 2:28:59 PM

-a sign from the anti-marriage equality side

4/3/2009 2:31:38 PM

Quote :

"For my money I'm okay with civil rights/equality coming from any branch of government, and I have no problem with judges saying majorities don't always get to make decisions on minority rights."

Again, I should stress: I have no problem with the outcome of this decision. What I'm pointing out, however, is that it would be preferable if it was embraced by the majority, rather than forced upon them.

Obviously, the reason we have a Constitution is to protect the rights of the minority (something both liberals and conservatives tend to forget when it serves their interests). In that sense, I don't see a problem with going to the courts once the legislative process has proven to be of no avail. I simply don't think they should be a first resort is all.

Quote :

"It strikes me as amusing when some republicans say that it should come from the legislature instead of the judicial branch, but then when it does it is republican gov's that veto it (Arnold did in CA, Douglas plans to in VT)"

The reason people like this say this (and don't pretend Democrats haven't been just as hypocritical on the issue) is that it's a matter of turf protection - nothing more, nothing less. The Governator and others want the prerogative to have the final say on things like this. Were the roles reversed, I somehow doubt the respective rhetoric would change much.

4/3/2009 2:31:46 PM

Quote :

"What I'm pointing out, however, is that it would be preferable if it was embraced by the majority, rather than forced upon them."

I agree.

I'm hoping seeing courts & legislatures going for marriage equality on the same 24 hour period in less liberal states than CA will help nudge them in the right direction.

Even NC doesn't have a constitutional ban on marriage equality which is something CA can't claim.

4/3/2009 2:37:43 PM

Quote :

"Look, I'm all for marriage equality (particularly in the sense that I'd rather see the government out of the marriage business altogether), but how exactly is relying on the courts to trump the legislature, and through it, the democratic process an inherently "superior" approach? If anything, it seems like it galvanizes opposition - the idea that the courts are dictating laws to the people, rather than laws being made by their representatives. Again, I welcome the day when things like this become a non-issue. But cramming it down peoples' respective throats doesn't seem like the way to build widespread tolerance or consensus."

The Iowa legislature enacted a law that was unconstitutional. The judiciary simply anulled the illegal law that the legislature passed. The judiciary isnt making laws, it's merely striking down laws that do not adhere to the constitution. Interpreting the constitution (in this case state constitution) is the main purpose of the state Supreme Court.

How do you come to feel like this is being "shoved down your throat"? It doesnt affect you. Let people be.

4/3/2009 2:38:22 PM

Quote :

"I'm all for marriage equality (particularly in the sense that I'd rather see the government out of the marriage business altogether)"

Agreed.
It seems like if the government got out of the marriage business altogether, which it should, then a lot of these marriage equality issues (homosexuals, polygamists, etc.) would resolve themselves.... Marriage is a legal contract, and that's all. Of course, your religion may have its own set of rules, but that's between you and your religion -- the government should have nothing to do with that.

Equality under the law, for the win.

4/3/2009 3:02:19 PM

Quote :

"It seems like if the government got out of the marriage business altogether, which it should, then a lot of these marriage equality issues"

Yeah, that would be nice, but it'll never happen. Those in favor of marriage equality get branded as "anti-marriage" enough, if they were actually pushing for getting rid of marriage, instead of extending civil marriage to everyone they'd never stand a chance. Gay people aren't going away, and marriage isn't going away, so those with religious concerns might as well go for equality and promote monogamy & fidelity for everyone.

4/3/2009 3:09:27 PM

Quote :

"Gay people and polygamists aren't going away, and marriage isn't going away, so those with religious concerns might as well go for equality and promote monogamy & fidelity for everyone."

[Edited on April 3, 2009 at 3:14 PM. Reason : ]

4/3/2009 3:13:58 PM

yea i dont think you can really call it marriage equality if you dont include polygamists

4/3/2009 3:26:57 PM

Im actually really impressed with Iowa

4/3/2009 3:38:25 PM

Quote :

"it would be preferable if it was embraced by the majority, rather than forced upon them. "

what's being forced upon anyone?

4/3/2009 3:48:30 PM

you know? dat dem gay faggoats

4/3/2009 3:54:19 PM

and also, let's be clear about iowa. they have a majority of their legislature who supports a law legalizing gay marriage. they just don't have a veto-proof majority right now. and most think the governor will veto the bill if it gets to his desk. guess we'll find out soon enough.

4/3/2009 3:59:19 PM

Quote :

"The Iowa legislature enacted a law that was unconstitutional. The judiciary simply anulled the illegal law that the legislature passed. The judiciary isnt making laws, it's merely striking down laws that do not adhere to the constitution. Interpreting the constitution (in this case state constitution) is the main purpose of the state Supreme Court."

As someone who actually lived in Iowa around the time of this original flap, there's a little more history to this matter.

First, an Iowa Supreme Court ruling found in favor plaintiffs suing for gay marriages to be recognized. The legislature voided that ruling through a law specifically designed to prohibit same-sex marriages. The ISC now voided that law. It's the same constituency who elected the legislature who passed the law, which means chances are, this is hardly the end of the matter.

Quote :

"How do you come to feel like this is being "shoved down your throat"? It doesnt affect you. Let people be."

Perhaps I am not making my position clear enough. I don't have any problem with the outcome of this decision. I do not feel like anything is being forced upon me. However, I am not one of the many, many people who oppose gay marriage in principle. Let's be clear about this, to start.

My point is that things like this tend to work better when they are based upon a broad consensus.

Call me a pessimist, but after living for about 7 years in Iowa, here's the outcome I foresee: next election, a popular backlash against the decision occurs in the state legislature. A Constitutional amendment explicitly rebuffing the ISC's decision is proposed. May or may not pass, but assume it does. Now, a direct legislative solution is insufficient; now, to legalize gay marriage, one has to re-amend the Iowa Constitution - a much higher barrier.

The reason for this backlash, as I see it, is because a change in the law which does not have broad enough consensus by the public is being handed down from the court. That is, there is a significant enough of a contingent of people who feel negatively about the issue to possibly result a legislative backlash.

This is the drawback of relying exclusively upon the judiciary to accomplish social goals; if there is a significant contingent of opposition, a judicial victory can mean more extreme legislative retribution as a result.

4/3/2009 5:29:49 PM

http://tinyurl.com/c2x9py

Quote :

"Hello. I’m Matt McCoy. I represent the south side of Des Moines, Senate District 31 in the Iowa Senate. I’m a lifelong Iowan, an former Eagle Scout, community development director, a father, and the first openly gay member of the Iowa Legislature. Today is a red letter day for the state of Iowa. All of Iowa’s citizens now have equal protection under the law. Thousands of Iowans who have worked hard, raised families, and paid taxes will now be afforded the opportunity to marry. Fair minded people throughout our state support equality for all. I have never been more proud of all the Iowans who have worked continuously for the advancement of human rights for all. Today we in Iowa are sending a message to all Americans, gay and straight. If you are looking for a great place to live, a place where people treat their neighbors with respect, please consider coming to Iowa to work, to invest and to raise a family. Unlike the fight in California, I believe that this issue is settled. Iowans will move on to fixing our economy, providing health care to our citizens and making our state a better place to live. Here’s why I believe Iowa will not go backwards when it comes to civil rights. One, Iowa has a long history of civil rights leadership. In 1839, the Iowa Supreme Court rejected slavery in a decision that found that a slave named Ralph became free when he stepped on Iowa soil, 26 years before the end of the Civil War decided the issue. In 1868, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled that racially segregated "separate but equal" schools had no place in Iowa, 85 years before the U.S. Supreme Court reached the same decision. In 1873, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled against racial discrimination in public accommodations, 91 years before the U.S. Supreme Court reached the same decision. In 1869, Iowa became the first state in the union to admit women to the practice of law. Two, social conservatives have made their case to Iowans and been rejected. The Iowa Republican Party is one of the most conservative in the country. For example, the Republican winners of the Iowa Presidential Caucuses include Pat Robertson, Pat Buchanan, and Mike Huckleebe. Here in Iowa, the Republican Party has focused on fringe issues for some time. And Iowans have responded by electing Democrats. In less than a decade, legislative debate has moved from considering laws banning gay Iowans from adopting children or being foster parents to passage of legislation protecting children from bullying in schools, expanding Iowa’s civil rights protections to include sexual orientation and transgender, a vote AGAINST amending the Constitution to ban gay marriage, and, now, a court decision providing full marriage equality. Third, the Iowa Constitution can’t be changed quickly. As I said, we’ve already had one vote in the Iowa Senate on amending the constitution to ban gay marriage, and that failed.. That was when Republicans had the majority. Every Democrat voted no and enough Republicans joined us to defeat the idea. Now Democrats control the Iowa House and Senate, and legislative leaders say the issue won’t come up for vote. Even if it does, Constitutional Amendments must be approved by two different two-year General Assemblies before they go to the people for a vote. In short, there is no way a flood of out-of-state money can be used to quickly scare Iowans into going backwards on civil rights. I believe marriage equality is here to stay. And Iowans will quickly realize that it is no big deal. Today Iowa is sending a message to young people, both gay and straight. If you are looking for a great place to live, a place where people treat their neighbors with respect, come to Iowa to work, to invest and to raise a family. I’m so proud to be an Iowan today. Thanks for celebrating with us. And whether you’re gay or straight, think about coming to Iowa to get married. "

4/3/2009 6:25:41 PM

shit what i said about iowa was wrong. i got the vermont and iowa stories mixed up. it's vermont that has the consensus from the legislature, but a governor who will likely veto it.

and on ^^ point.

if you look at interracial marriage back in the 50s and 60s, it was just as unpopular and mostly laws got struck down through the judiciary. once a few years had passed, interracial marriage was far more accepted and the rest is history. same with integration, etc. wanting everyone to be happy about it isn't a reason to not have equality. sadly some people are going to have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century. they'll get used to it quickly enough. and ultimately, it will get to the ussc and that will be that.

4/3/2009 7:12:06 PM

^ I'd like to believe that; it would be nice to believe that. However, look at the experience of California, Massachusetts, and other states. It hasn't exactly been a matter of a few ruffled feathers and then everyone calming down. There has been a fairly signficiant backlash, in part because I suspect opposition to gay marriage is more widespread (geographically and in terms of demographics) than there was interracial marriage.

Again, history could prove me wrong on this point - and I'd be happy to be proven wrong, here. I just suspect things will not be as sanguine as you make them out to be.

[Edited on April 3, 2009 at 8:27 PM. Reason : ^]

4/3/2009 8:27:30 PM

i think it will. i think we're too close to this.

here you go:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/04/will-iowans-uphold-gay-marriage.html

opposition to gay marriage has been on a constant decline in the past decade (and in the theory of nate silver will ultimately be a minority position in more than half the states with in the next 5-10 years.

4/3/2009 8:33:38 PM

Quote :

"However, look at... Massachusetts "

Making gay marriage legal there was a big issue, as was extending it to out of staters.

Mitt Romney then used a law that was originally used to keep out of state interracial couples from getting married (one that said you can't get married here if your home state wont recognize it) to block gay marriage to out of staters.

The 2nd time they extended it to out of staters, no one took notice. No protests, no rallies, barely any media coverage, and no one cared. Took a few years & a few political battles for everyone to get used to it, but then they stopped caring. MA has had gay marriage the longest though, so I expect there will still be some turmoil in the other states that are newer to it, but I also expect that turmoil will settle down in the same way it did in MA.

4/3/2009 8:45:07 PM

Who the fuck opposes gay or polygamist marriage, anyway??
How can people want to deny equal rights to consenting adults that want to marry?
Opposition to gay or polygamist marriage is generally just a bunch of bigoted theocratic bullshit.

Equality under the law for the win.

4/3/2009 8:45:50 PM

Why stop at homosexual marriage, lets go all out and let women marry their horses and little girls marry their teddy bears, and men marry as many wives as they want.

4/3/2009 8:56:46 PM

I agree, marriage equality is a slippery slope that will lead to the destruction of us all (just as it did for the poor dinosaurs).

4/3/2009 9:01:32 PM

^^
I know that you think you're making a point, but you're not.
No one has ever suggested that non-humans be able to enter legal contracts. No elephants own their own business. No flamingos run for office. No horses propose marriage to teddy-bears. Shut the fuck up with your meaningless dribble.

Quote :

"and men marry as many wives as they want."

What, may I ask, is wrong with polygamy?
(polygamy = polygyny, polyandry, and group marriage) Please... don't dare suggest that polygamy = religious patriarchal pedophiles.


^
lol

[Edited on April 3, 2009 at 9:06 PM. Reason : ]

4/3/2009 9:02:41 PM

^ what the fuck is your problem? I didn't say anything was wrong with it. Marriage should be free to everyone.

Just so you know, there are place in this world where marriage =/= legal contract and is an actual social celebration free of laws.

^^ lol. what?

4/3/2009 9:37:24 PM

So you're saying that you think this:

Quote :

"Why stop at homosexual marriage, lets go all out and let women marry their horses and little girls marry their teddy bears, and men marry as many wives as they want."

No sarcasm?
Well, even if you do -- that's crap. What the fuck do you think a human-horse marriage would be?... or a human-teddy bear marriage? I call bullshit. NO one is so fucking dumb as to want to allow non-humans, and inanimate object to marry.... Seriously. STFU.

Quote :

"there are place in this world where marriage =/= legal contract and is an actual social celebration free of laws"

Well, that's not what anyone here is talking about. If you want to "marry" a grapefruit, with no legal contract, and celebrate your human-citrus society, that's fine. We're talking about law. Human law. Get a fucking clue.

4/3/2009 9:43:49 PM

Quote :

"Equality under the law for the win. "

I agree, lets do this in the taxcode as well!!!!!

Oh too much equality there?

4/3/2009 9:45:16 PM

Of course that isn't sarcasm you nitwit. I don't give a shit what people do with their lives, it's their business.

Human Law...lol

4/3/2009 9:48:24 PM

As opposed to.... what? crustacean law?
Quit already with your weak ass troll bullshit.
Laws are made by humans. STFU and GTFO.

4/3/2009 9:50:02 PM

income is not a choice!

FTW!

[Edited on April 3, 2009 at 9:50 PM. Reason : !]

4/3/2009 9:50:21 PM

^^ As opposed to NO law. Government should keep its noses out of marriage.

You call me the troll? Whatever dude.

4/3/2009 9:59:48 PM

Quote :

"Government should keep its noses out of marriage."

Yes, to the extent how government defines how humans can make marriage contracts with other humans. The crap you're talking about is completely different. Marriage contracts address taxes, power of attorney, hospital visitation, child custody, etc., OF HUMANS. Those are all legal concerns, of human law. If anyone wants to get a purely non-government-recognized and non-law-recognized "marriage", then that's fine, but unless the marriage consists solely of humans, then you're not going to have legal contracts that mean anything. AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE FUCKING TALKING ABOUT IN THIS THREAD. Seriously. STFU. You are the dumbest mother-fucking troll I've encountered in a long time.

[Edited on April 3, 2009 at 10:28 PM. Reason : ]

4/3/2009 10:27:41 PM

Quote :

"Yes, to the extent how government defines how humans can make marriage contracts with other humans. The crap you're talking about is completely different. Marriage contracts address taxes, power of attorney, hospital visitation, child custody, etc., OF HUMANS. Those are all legal concerns, of human law."

Dude, chill the fuck out. Seriously. In your ranting, I think you're missing the guy's point: marriage, in as far a religious institution, should be kept seperate from the civil matters which make it up - like contracts, power of attorney, etc.

In other words, get government out of the "marriage" game entirely. All those benefits we currently assign to "marriage?" Put them in a one-stop package: call it a "civil union." Make it have absolutely nothing to do with what goes on inside the doors of a church. Offer it to any two consenting adults who should choose to apply for it.

Everybody wins.

[Edited on April 3, 2009 at 10:33 PM. Reason : .]

4/3/2009 10:31:53 PM

^
I agree. But he's introducing the idea with no respect to the fact that this thread is about LAW.

Quote :

"marriage, in as far a religious institution, should be kept seperate from the civil matters which make it up - like contracts, power of attorney, etc."

I agree, but the civil matter are what we're talking about -- and you can call it "civil union", but I and nearly everyone else will call it "marriage". Just because you call it "marriage" doesn't mean you're talking about the religious or non-legal side. Yes, religions would love to retain that term for themselves, but that will never happen. Marriage, including the term "marriage" should be 100% secular. If he's talking about non-legal or religious marriage, then that's different, and he should have been more clear. Marriage is the term. "Marriage". Period.

4/3/2009 10:37:37 PM

No, this thread is about Equality. When has Any soapbox thread not somehow turned into multiple mini topics? Sure there is some legislation mentioned in this thread, but the heart of the matter is equality.

^^ exactly.

4/3/2009 10:43:23 PM

Quote :

"income is not a choice!"

I thought sexual orientation isn't your choice either?

4/3/2009 10:46:02 PM

Quote :

"No, this thread is about Equality. When has Any soapbox thread not somehow turned into multiple mini topics? Sure there is some legislation mentioned in this thread, but the heart of the matter is equality"

NO. THIS THREAD IS ABOUT LAW. THE HEART OF THE MATTER IS LAW, AND EQUALITY UNDER THE LAW. YOU FUCKING LOSE. FUCK YOU. GO FUCK YOURSELF YOU THREAD DERAILING QUEEFSTAIN.

[Edited on April 3, 2009 at 10:47 PM. Reason : ]

4/3/2009 10:46:47 PM

Quote :

"Dude, chill the fuck out."

4/3/2009 10:50:33 PM

Quote :

"NO. THIS THREAD IS ABOUT LAW. THE HEART OF THE MATTER IS LAW, AND EQUALITY UNDER THE LAW. YOU FUCKING LOSE. FUCK YOU. GO FUCK YOURSELF YOU THREAD DERAILING QUEEFSTAIN. "

getting angry enough to post in caps is pathetic, you should really reexamine how important you rate the opinion of others on the internet.

4/3/2009 11:04:57 PM

^
Go fuck yourself.

4/3/2009 11:17:19 PM

I AM POSTING IN CAPS BUT I AM NOT ANGRY.

4/3/2009 11:22:24 PM

I'M TYPING THIS AS HARD AS I CAN.

http://www.kanyeuniversecity.com/blog/?em3106=196808_-1__0_


[Edited on April 3, 2009 at 11:26 PM. Reason : lulz.]

4/3/2009 11:25:16 PM

I guess I am now in the minority on this subject. I agree the the previous statements about how the Government should stay out of marriage entirely. That is very likely to never happen though.

Since before recorded history marriage has had the definition of a union between a Man and Woman. My beef with the whole gay marriage thing is that I think it pollutes the definition and meaning of the word. I am fine with gays having civil unions to gain the same benefits as married people. I am fine up until they try to claim it is a marriage. Whats wrong with calling it a civil union, or create some new synergistic word to call it?

4/3/2009 11:51:40 PM

THERE ARE MUCH MORE IMPORTANT THINGS TO WORRY ABOUT

IM SORRY FOR YELLING

4/4/2009 12:54:25 AM

Quote :

"I am fine with gays having civil unions to gain the same benefits as married people."

For one thing it looks kind of separate but equal, but civil unions do not include all the same benefits as marriage. And no matter how many times some people say they want civil unions that include all the same benefits, no realization of civil union laws ever has.

Marriage has an ambiguous meaning whether you are referring to the civil contract recognized by the government, or the religious ceremony. I think the government should be allowed to use the word marriage for any couple it marries, but that religious institutions should have the choice of whether or not they will recognize that marriage or perform a religious ceremony to go along with it.

4/4/2009 6:55:48 AM

^
I agree, but...

Quote :

"Marriage has an ambiguous meaning whether you are referring to the civil contract recognized by the government, or the religious ceremony. I think the government should be allowed to use the word marriage for any couple group of 2 or more people it marries, but that religious institutions should have the choice of whether or not they will recognize that marriage or perform a religious ceremony to go along with it."

..there. Fixed it.
(How can people support gay marriage, but not polygamy?)

Quote :

"Since before recorded history marriage has had the definition of a union between a Man and Woman."

100% false. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy

Quote :

"Historically, polygamy has been practiced as polygyny (one man having more than one wife), or as polyandry (one woman having more than one husband), or, less commonly as group marriage (husbands having many wives and those wives having many husbands). (See "Forms of Polygamy" below.) .... According to the Ethnographic Atlas Codebook, of the 1231 societies noted, 186 were monogamous. 453 had occasional polygyny, 588 had more frequent polygyny, and 4 had polyandry. .... The Hebrew scriptures document approximately forty polygamists. .... Legal recognition of polygamy: Polygamy Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Benin, Brunei, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chad, Central African Republic, Congo, Djibouti, Egypt, Gabon, The Gambia, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Myanmar, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda, UAE, Yemen, Zambia Recognized in some regions Eritrea (Sharia only), Mayotte, Palestinian territories, Western Sahara Recognized, not performed United Kingdom Recognition debated DR Congo, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Russia, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan"

Quote :

" My beef with the whole gay marriage thing is that I think it pollutes the definition and meaning of the word."

Only in the sense that some monogamists incorrectly claim the word and concept of "marriage" as their own.

[Edited on April 4, 2009 at 7:50 AM. Reason : ]

4/4/2009 7:47:40 AM

^ I stand corrected. I guess the word "Marriage" is more generic than I thought.

4/4/2009 11:04:10 AM