Find Your Valentine
Slog
News & ArtsMonday, October 19, 2009
Homo R-71 Signature Case Going to Supreme Court?
Posted by Dominic Holden on Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 9:16 AM
The group that circulated petitions to put the domestic-partnership bill on the ballot, now called Referendum 71, are appealing to the Supreme Court to keep secret the names and addresses of everyone who signed the petition. I write about the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision last week to release the signatures here.
I doubt the bigots trying to repeal gay rights really expect the Supremes take the case; they just want to delay any decision until after the election to reduce scrutiny. I've never been a huge fan of publishing the names—I'm also not opposed to it—but this special-rights-for-bigots campaign has gone too far. Lawmaking is done in public—whether it's on the floor of the legislature or on a petition. I'm starting to think that, assuming the court releases the names, the petition sheets should be printed as billboards. Just to make the point.
1
This is huge, huge as developments go.
If the Supreme Court takes it on, I have no idea what will happen.
If they simply reject it, the Forces of Good have triumphed as the release will proceed.
Right?
If the Supreme Court takes it on, I have no idea what will happen.
If they simply reject it, the Forces of Good have triumphed as the release will proceed.
Right?
4
"I've never been a huge fan of publishing the names" LOL.
Your statement would be hilarious if all this didn't had the potential it has against the signers and their families.
As if the courts needed further prove, "the petition sheets should be printed as billboards. Just to make the point", this is what they're set on doing, making a point and if the courts turn a blind eye on this, then they should be held responsible.
Your statement would be hilarious if all this didn't had the potential it has against the signers and their families.
As if the courts needed further prove, "the petition sheets should be printed as billboards. Just to make the point", this is what they're set on doing, making a point and if the courts turn a blind eye on this, then they should be held responsible.
5
@3 I pointed this out to you 40 minutes ago on the "Morning News" just so you know...
Lawmaking by lawmakers is done in public. The public makes a law thru a referendum, and that too is done in public. AT THE BALLOT BOX!
Signers of a petition have a right to privacy. They have a right to sign a petition to have an issue appear on the ballot to be determined by popular vote. That is how Democracy works, is via popular vote. Your veiled effort of "outing" people who want an issue decided in public at the ballot box, has always been on shaky legal ground from the get go. You damn well know it.
I'm starting to think that this is much more than an effort to "politely confront signers" Dom... and this just makes it that much more obvious.
I could care less what actually happens with this Referendum. My issue is the downstream future ramifications on other issues that this precedent sets.
You may be focused narrowly on using the strategy to shame bigots. However this very same "law" may be used against your special interests down the road.....
Lawmaking by lawmakers is done in public. The public makes a law thru a referendum, and that too is done in public. AT THE BALLOT BOX!
Signers of a petition have a right to privacy. They have a right to sign a petition to have an issue appear on the ballot to be determined by popular vote. That is how Democracy works, is via popular vote. Your veiled effort of "outing" people who want an issue decided in public at the ballot box, has always been on shaky legal ground from the get go. You damn well know it.
I'm starting to think that this is much more than an effort to "politely confront signers" Dom... and this just makes it that much more obvious.
I could care less what actually happens with this Referendum. My issue is the downstream future ramifications on other issues that this precedent sets.
You may be focused narrowly on using the strategy to shame bigots. However this very same "law" may be used against your special interests down the road.....
6
If they made billboards, the absolute worst result that would happen would be a few angry calls to some of the signers. There are no cases of people hurting others for being anti-homosexual outside of incidents instigated by said anti-homosexuals, as far as I know, and certainly no murders.
You can't say the same for the opposite side, Loveschild.
You can't say the same for the opposite side, Loveschild.
7
Everyone who loses in the court of appeals usually seeks to have the case heard by the Supreme Court. Only the tiniest fraction get taken. There's no right of appeal to the Supremes, so chances are it's not going to be heard.
8
As the sponsor of two Statewide initiatives, I'd like to remind everyone of the following:
There’s absolutely no expectation of privacy when signing a petition sheet.
- You sign in public…
- on a document open to public view…
- on a document signed by other individuals
- gathered by a person who is not an agent of the State
- who can show that petition to whomever they choose
- who can sell that petition to whomever they choose
- who can copy that petition in any manner they choose
- who can choose to post copies of that petition online
- who can contact the signers of that petition in any manner they choose: fundraising, persuasion, etc.
- who could post the names on a billboard
All perfectly legal, and commonly practiced. Tim Eymann very likely has copies of the names of every person who has ever signed one of his initiatives. He uses those names to raise funds for his current and future initiatives.
So, as is currently the law and practiced, the signature gatherer can choose to do whatever they want with the petitions. And, you think there’s a presumption of privacy?
Open government would mandate that all interested parties have equal access to the petitions as does the signature gatherer.
There’s absolutely no expectation of privacy when signing a petition sheet.
- You sign in public…
- on a document open to public view…
- on a document signed by other individuals
- gathered by a person who is not an agent of the State
- who can show that petition to whomever they choose
- who can sell that petition to whomever they choose
- who can copy that petition in any manner they choose
- who can choose to post copies of that petition online
- who can contact the signers of that petition in any manner they choose: fundraising, persuasion, etc.
- who could post the names on a billboard
All perfectly legal, and commonly practiced. Tim Eymann very likely has copies of the names of every person who has ever signed one of his initiatives. He uses those names to raise funds for his current and future initiatives.
So, as is currently the law and practiced, the signature gatherer can choose to do whatever they want with the petitions. And, you think there’s a presumption of privacy?
Open government would mandate that all interested parties have equal access to the petitions as does the signature gatherer.
9
@8 What I'm saying, is that a petition signer does indeed know they are signing a public document, when they do sign in ink. However they believe (as do I) that their signature is not to be used by those in opposition, as a means of strategically targeting them to "politely engage in debate".
It serves as a means of intimidation, that if one is willing to put up with harrassment, then feel free to sign. However if potential signers are dissuaded from signing because of the "potential" for being harassed in the future, then THAT is a problem. Noone is made to vote in public. Their vote is private. They should have a right to want to see something on a ballot, and if they gather enough signatures, it should appear. Period.
Petition signature gatherers, and petition organizers should not have to share any signatures, except with state polling officials as mandated by law.
Opponents of petitions have no rights to those petitions.... and if they do, it should be yanked away from them. The potential for abuse (as shown here) outweighs any rights they may have had.
Period.
It serves as a means of intimidation, that if one is willing to put up with harrassment, then feel free to sign. However if potential signers are dissuaded from signing because of the "potential" for being harassed in the future, then THAT is a problem. Noone is made to vote in public. Their vote is private. They should have a right to want to see something on a ballot, and if they gather enough signatures, it should appear. Period.
Petition signature gatherers, and petition organizers should not have to share any signatures, except with state polling officials as mandated by law.
Opponents of petitions have no rights to those petitions.... and if they do, it should be yanked away from them. The potential for abuse (as shown here) outweighs any rights they may have had.
Period.
10
Too many people just sign every initiative put in front of them at the grocery store or community festival. They have no spine to say no to the petitioner or go along with the exaggerated "Let the people decide!" mentality. Maybe if they know that their neighbors and coworkers can look them up, they will hesitate and only sign for issues that they actually care about and are willing to defend.
13
@9 Reality Check...
You don't know what you're talking about. That's the only Reality Check going on here.
Again, there is no presumption of privacy. Anyone who signs a public document, in public, by a common member of the public who is not an agent of the Government, can't reasonably expect privacy in this matter. And, in fact, they are not guaranteed privacy. The petition gatherer could choose to sell that petition sheet to anyone, including to the opposition of a proposed iniative or referendum.
You continue to blur the line between the privacy of voting and the privacy of signing an initative. Those are two different actions, as evidenced quite easily by the manner in which each of those actions occurs.
You can't "yank rights" from one citizen while maintaining that right for another citizen. In other words, you can't give Tim Eymann (and each and every paid signature gatherer who holds petitions) one right, and me another.
You're simply confused, Reality Check.
You don't know what you're talking about. That's the only Reality Check going on here.
Again, there is no presumption of privacy. Anyone who signs a public document, in public, by a common member of the public who is not an agent of the Government, can't reasonably expect privacy in this matter. And, in fact, they are not guaranteed privacy. The petition gatherer could choose to sell that petition sheet to anyone, including to the opposition of a proposed iniative or referendum.
You continue to blur the line between the privacy of voting and the privacy of signing an initative. Those are two different actions, as evidenced quite easily by the manner in which each of those actions occurs.
You can't "yank rights" from one citizen while maintaining that right for another citizen. In other words, you can't give Tim Eymann (and each and every paid signature gatherer who holds petitions) one right, and me another.
You're simply confused, Reality Check.
14
@13 Then please humor us Timothy... or just humor me I don't care either way...
Tell me... what is going to be the basis of the argument by lawyers trying to get this issue before SCOTUS?
What Constitutionally protected infringement are they going to say they are trying to protect? Please do tell...
Or are they trying to "blur" that same line?
hmm?
Tell me... what is going to be the basis of the argument by lawyers trying to get this issue before SCOTUS?
What Constitutionally protected infringement are they going to say they are trying to protect? Please do tell...
Or are they trying to "blur" that same line?
hmm?
15
@13
"there is no presumption of privacy. Anyone who signs a public document, in public, by a common member of the public who is not an agent of the Government, can't reasonably expect privacy in this matter. And, in fact, they are not guaranteed privacy. The petition gatherer could choose to sell that petition sheet to anyone, including to the opposition of a proposed iniative or referendum."
"You can't 'yank rights' from one citizen while maintaining that right for another citizen. In other words, you can't give Tim Eymann (and each and every paid signature gatherer who holds petitions) one right, and me another."
This is why the anti R-71 people and Eyman have no legal standing. Either ALL referendums signers from day one of the first referendum are free public record, or none of them are, period.
State law currently says they all are. If somehow any law ever got passed making them non-public data, I'd bet anyone $5 the next election would carry a referendum that would make all referendums free public record permanently.
"there is no presumption of privacy. Anyone who signs a public document, in public, by a common member of the public who is not an agent of the Government, can't reasonably expect privacy in this matter. And, in fact, they are not guaranteed privacy. The petition gatherer could choose to sell that petition sheet to anyone, including to the opposition of a proposed iniative or referendum."
"You can't 'yank rights' from one citizen while maintaining that right for another citizen. In other words, you can't give Tim Eymann (and each and every paid signature gatherer who holds petitions) one right, and me another."
This is why the anti R-71 people and Eyman have no legal standing. Either ALL referendums signers from day one of the first referendum are free public record, or none of them are, period.
State law currently says they all are. If somehow any law ever got passed making them non-public data, I'd bet anyone $5 the next election would carry a referendum that would make all referendums free public record permanently.
16
This issue is more about the right of the people to hold their elected officials up to public scrutiny than it is about confronting petition signers. Without the ability to independently verify the validity of the signatures on the petitions all we have to go by is the word of the Secretary of State.
17
@14/Reality Check
If you're in favor of obfuscating R-71 signers, can you point to a single state or Federal law that supports this? Please cite the exact law. Note that this legal citation would have to be applicable to ALL past, present, and future WA state referendums, as the law is currently written, to be constitutional.
Go.
If you're in favor of obfuscating R-71 signers, can you point to a single state or Federal law that supports this? Please cite the exact law. Note that this legal citation would have to be applicable to ALL past, present, and future WA state referendums, as the law is currently written, to be constitutional.
Go.
18
@14 Un-Reality...
I suspect that those representing the attempt to quash open records are going to argue, as they have been doing, that it is an infringement on first amendment rights. But so what? They could argue anything they want. That's a red herring.
Again, you don't even adequately understand your own argument.
Question for you. Should anyone who chooses to gather signatures be allowed to see who signs the petition?
I suspect that those representing the attempt to quash open records are going to argue, as they have been doing, that it is an infringement on first amendment rights. But so what? They could argue anything they want. That's a red herring.
Again, you don't even adequately understand your own argument.
Question for you. Should anyone who chooses to gather signatures be allowed to see who signs the petition?
19
"Special-rights-for-bigots"....
So I live in Everett (woe unto me!) and two weeks ago on my drive into town, I saw a couple of painted bedsheets hanging on a pedestrian overpass. One said, "Protect Our Families: REJECT R-71," and the other said, "We're not bigots, we're Americans." With a little flag. How cute.
So I live in Everett (woe unto me!) and two weeks ago on my drive into town, I saw a couple of painted bedsheets hanging on a pedestrian overpass. One said, "Protect Our Families: REJECT R-71," and the other said, "We're not bigots, we're Americans." With a little flag. How cute.
20
@12: if your assumption is that a mccain presidency would have righted the ship of state (which bush crashed into an iceberg on 9/12/01) in any meaningful way, you are woefully mistaken.
21
RC, you're showing your butthurt pussy side @ 2 again, and your poor grasp of law and rights in your other comments. Do you realize how foolish you make yourself look?
23
@17 Why do you think this has the potential to be challenged at the SCOTUS level?
Nice try. How about we flip your question back to you. Is there similar precedent?
I really don't know either way if there is case law that pertains to this issue. I never claimed to be a law research scholar...
Nice try. How about we flip your question back to you. Is there similar precedent?
I really don't know either way if there is case law that pertains to this issue. I never claimed to be a law research scholar...
24
you see @ 18 you refuse to acknowledge that there may indeed be a legal problem...
please continue to go indepth as to what that 1st Amendment infringement might be! Don't hem and haw... let's hear all of it!
You can do it!
please continue to go indepth as to what that 1st Amendment infringement might be! Don't hem and haw... let's hear all of it!
You can do it!
25
@23
Nice evasion. How does the privacy of signers in the specific case of R-71 trump
1. Existing valid and already successfully defended in court (more than once) state open-records law?
Hint: it doesn't.
Nice evasion. How does the privacy of signers in the specific case of R-71 trump
1. Existing valid and already successfully defended in court (more than once) state open-records law?
Hint: it doesn't.
26
Note to everyone trying to debate RC: He's a master at shifting goalposts and playing the "you're avoiding the question" card when you don't acknowledge his false premises as being realistic. You'll know you've won when he declares that he won't debate you anymore.
27
@20 Matty Matty Matty.....
Nice to see your snark so early in the morning. Isn't your village in Washington calling you back looking for their idiot?
Nice to see your snark so early in the morning. Isn't your village in Washington calling you back looking for their idiot?
28
@26 Note to everyone who takes Matt as being intelligent and able to form his own opinions without help.
He just goes from thread to thread and tries to put others down to pump up his own ego...
Move along Matty... go shovel some snow and make better use of your time.
He just goes from thread to thread and tries to put others down to pump up his own ego...
Move along Matty... go shovel some snow and make better use of your time.
29
@24 Un-Real...I haven't refused to acknowledge anything. You simply asked me what I think the R-71 folks will argue before the Court. Actually, I don't think they'll make it to the Supreme Court, but no matter. You've already admitted that you don't really understand the law, so I don't understand your point. Anyone can argue anything they like regarding laws.
But, back to my question to you, which you failed to answer: Should anyone who chooses to gather signatures be allowed to see who signs the petition?
But, back to my question to you, which you failed to answer: Should anyone who chooses to gather signatures be allowed to see who signs the petition?
30
@25 not trying to evade. If you've ever debated here with me before you would know I don't evade legitimate questions with honest intent.
Your question was quite obviously leading from the beginning. I didn't need any "hints". I'm much more up on things than you are. Trust me on this..
My earlier points stand. Try reading them again, and you'll see what I"m driving at.
Your question was quite obviously leading from the beginning. I didn't need any "hints". I'm much more up on things than you are. Trust me on this..
My earlier points stand. Try reading them again, and you'll see what I"m driving at.
31
@30
I'm obviously dumber than you, would you mind spelling it out for me?
How is R-71 legally different under existing and tested state law, than every other referendum to date?
I'm obviously dumber than you, would you mind spelling it out for me?
How is R-71 legally different under existing and tested state law, than every other referendum to date?
32
@ RC, the fine posters at slog are more than capable of forming their judgment about us. And they'll see that, while I'm certainly giving you the business today, that I don't follow you from thread to thread as you falsely say I do. So keep digging.
33
@29 I never said I didn't understand the law. Farrrr from it actually. I understand law extremely well. What I said, is I haven't tried researching case law on the issue, nor do I care to...
I do know that if the organizers of the petition are appealing this to SCOTUS, they have to cite some infringement on the Constitution. I simply asked you to hypothesize what that line of logic might be.
To answer your question... and I know you are trying to bait me, and then use my logic against me... which is cute.. but here goes...
A signature gatherer has the right to see who signs their petition. They also have the right to use those signatures down the road.as they see fit. They are the "owners" of that data they collect, and as you've noted can use it in the future. I don't think anyone would begrudge them that use. People indicated they were in "favor" of whatever they signed, hence have expressed a written (by their signature) interest in agreeing with something.
People by and large would say they are NOT agreeing to have someone who disagrees with them, use their signatures to harass them about their choice of signing.
There is no extension of logic that opponents have a "right" to contact said signatures.
You can damn well expect that a state law will be introduced protecting petition signers from being contacted by opponents of a petition they signed. A whole slew of laws related to this protection will be passed into voter protection laws, that one cannot be discriminated against for signing a petition, including but not limited to workplace protection, employment protection, etc etc...
You want to "shame" folks into participating in Democracy, feel free...
But beware the Pandora's box you open.
More...
I do know that if the organizers of the petition are appealing this to SCOTUS, they have to cite some infringement on the Constitution. I simply asked you to hypothesize what that line of logic might be.
To answer your question... and I know you are trying to bait me, and then use my logic against me... which is cute.. but here goes...
A signature gatherer has the right to see who signs their petition. They also have the right to use those signatures down the road.as they see fit. They are the "owners" of that data they collect, and as you've noted can use it in the future. I don't think anyone would begrudge them that use. People indicated they were in "favor" of whatever they signed, hence have expressed a written (by their signature) interest in agreeing with something.
People by and large would say they are NOT agreeing to have someone who disagrees with them, use their signatures to harass them about their choice of signing.
There is no extension of logic that opponents have a "right" to contact said signatures.
You can damn well expect that a state law will be introduced protecting petition signers from being contacted by opponents of a petition they signed. A whole slew of laws related to this protection will be passed into voter protection laws, that one cannot be discriminated against for signing a petition, including but not limited to workplace protection, employment protection, etc etc...
You want to "shame" folks into participating in Democracy, feel free...
But beware the Pandora's box you open.
35
Like I said, use the 10 public art stations at the Fremont Bridge and post them there.
Hate shies from the light of day.
Hate shies from the light of day.
36
@32 Reality Check...So, you suggest that anyone who gathers signatures for any issue, owns that petition and can do anything they like with the signature contained on that petition. Right?
Could that person send the signers a letter, encouraging them to vote for the resultant initiative?
Could that person send the signers a letter, encouraging them to vote against the resultant initiative?
Do you know what the qualifications are to gather signatures for an initiative?
Could that person send the signers a letter, encouraging them to vote for the resultant initiative?
Could that person send the signers a letter, encouraging them to vote against the resultant initiative?
Do you know what the qualifications are to gather signatures for an initiative?
37
In each successive thread where that fascist dumbass pops up, I think there's no way that "Reality" Check could make himself look MORE stupid. And yet EVERY time, he manages to prove me wrong.
38
@31
Nice to see you've ceded the point by refusing to answer a direct to the point of a hammer question.
Nice to see you've ceded the point by refusing to answer a direct to the point of a hammer question.
39
@33
"A whole slew of laws related to this protection will be passed into voter protection laws, that one cannot be discriminated against for signing a petition, including but not limited to workplace protection, employment protection, etc etc..."
Speaking of Pandora's boxes, would that include laws protecting anyone from any discrimination based on their sexual orientation?
"A whole slew of laws related to this protection will be passed into voter protection laws, that one cannot be discriminated against for signing a petition, including but not limited to workplace protection, employment protection, etc etc..."
Speaking of Pandora's boxes, would that include laws protecting anyone from any discrimination based on their sexual orientation?
40
Washington State Domestic Partner Registry is public record, the citizens that sign the petition should be even more public, in my opinion. Love the billboard idea!
41
BTW...I know that the following three people signed R-71 Petitions:
Cherie K Owen
Christine Lawrence
Laura Middleton
How do I know? Because the Secretary of State's office has published a photo of petition sheets on their blog, here:
http://blogs.secstate.wa.gov/FromOurCorn…
What can I do with this information?
Cherie K Owen
Christine Lawrence
Laura Middleton
How do I know? Because the Secretary of State's office has published a photo of petition sheets on their blog, here:
http://blogs.secstate.wa.gov/FromOurCorn…
What can I do with this information?
42
Isn't this all a distraction from the immediate task at hand: getting voters to vote to APPROVE Referendum 71? I find it ironic that the Stranger attacks people who march, yet distracts people with the legal sideshow of petitions and signatures. Consistency, Dom, consistency.
43
Wait a minute:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/po…
"Protect Marriage Washington argued that state officials had suddenly changed a long-standing practice of keeping confidential the identities of those who signed referendum petitions."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding of present state law is that before the R-71 war, I could have driven to Olympia last year, paid x dollars, and gotten the names of the people that signed a given petition? True/false?
If true, again: why is R-71 different under our laws?
This whole line of argument boggles the mind. R-71's signers have not one iota of more rights than anyone else who ever signed any other referendum.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/po…
"Protect Marriage Washington argued that state officials had suddenly changed a long-standing practice of keeping confidential the identities of those who signed referendum petitions."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding of present state law is that before the R-71 war, I could have driven to Olympia last year, paid x dollars, and gotten the names of the people that signed a given petition? True/false?
If true, again: why is R-71 different under our laws?
This whole line of argument boggles the mind. R-71's signers have not one iota of more rights than anyone else who ever signed any other referendum.
45
The argument that was put forth by those in favor of concealing the petition signatures was that signing a referendum petition was akin to "anonymous political speech." The anonymous political speech doctrine has been invoked in the past to protect people who write anonymous letters to the editor or post anonymous messages to public bulletin boards such as this one.
However, the 9th Circuit found that this doctrine does not apply to Washington's petition process for two reasons.
1). The public nature of the petition process; i.e., petitions are signed in public areas, in front of other people, and the signature gatherers are not state officials (meaning there is no privity with the state). For these reasons the court found that there is no expectation of privacy here.
2.) The nature of the political process involved with petitions is more akin to the legislative process. And just as every bill that is sponsored in the legislature must have its sponsors identified, so too must the sponsors of referenda be identified. The sponsors in this case being the signers of the petition.
However, the 9th Circuit found that this doctrine does not apply to Washington's petition process for two reasons.
1). The public nature of the petition process; i.e., petitions are signed in public areas, in front of other people, and the signature gatherers are not state officials (meaning there is no privity with the state). For these reasons the court found that there is no expectation of privacy here.
2.) The nature of the political process involved with petitions is more akin to the legislative process. And just as every bill that is sponsored in the legislature must have its sponsors identified, so too must the sponsors of referenda be identified. The sponsors in this case being the signers of the petition.
46
The only privacy you have when you sign such a petition, is one from having a combined audio AND video recording made of you without your permission - or an upskirt video.
The signatures - sorry, Charlie, if you want a different set of rules, move to another state that has a different state constitution.
The signatures - sorry, Charlie, if you want a different set of rules, move to another state that has a different state constitution.
47
@43...to answer your question, read this document from the Secretary of State's Office:
http://blogs.secstate.wa.gov/FromOurCorn…
http://blogs.secstate.wa.gov/FromOurCorn…
49
I don't know why people do something and "afraid" others know his names. Is that thing really bad?
50
48
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
More...
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
SL Letter of the Day: Pill The Homos! by Dan Savage
-
The AP Is Reporting That Whitney Houston Is Dead by Paul Constant
-
Slog Bible Study: Deuteronomy 21:10-14 by Goldy
-
Because Guns Make Us Safer by Goldy
-
SL Letter of the Day: Daddy Loves Who? by Dan Savage
-
Gregoire: "This is signed!" by Eli Sanders
-
Gay Kids Are Still Killing Themselves by Dan Savage
-
Whitney Is Dead, And So Is Hollywood by Kelly O
-
Planned Parenthood Exposed! by David Schmader
-
Stranger Tournament of Dunces, Match 3: Rep. Mark Hargrove vs. Rep. Norma Smith by Eli Sanders
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (50) RSS