Find Your Valentine
Slog
News & ArtsThursday, January 7, 2010
Homo / News / Hetero Marriage Equality Rejected By New Jersey State Senate
Posted by Dan Savage on Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 1:40 PM
And the bigots go wild.
5
from @breakingnews twitter feed:
N.J. Senate defeats bill legalizing gay marriage; little chance of new law for next 4 years - AP
N.J. Senate defeats bill legalizing gay marriage; little chance of new law for next 4 years - AP
7
"Freedom of Religion in Civil Marriage" was what they called it?! I don't know why I'm surprised, but holy fuck that's twisted.
11
Well, in order to prove there was a case, they needed to have a vote in either chamber of the legislature before advancing to the courts. The sponsors in the Senate, Assembly and Garden State Equality got exactly that. They showed that the legislature has no interest in correcting what the courts have noted is a terribly unequal law that purports to be equal to marriage at the state level.
Expect GSE to announce sometime soon that they've gotten what they needed in order to form a coherent court case. The courts will likely side with GSE because it was the courts who punted the issue in the first place and why we had to have a vote in Trenton today. The supreme court a few years ago said that the legislature absolutely positively had to correct the issue, otherwise the court would be required to step in.
Their decision was unanimous: the legislature fixes it, or we fix it.
Of course, the court can't really step in and say there's a time limit, so we had the vote.
Expect GSE to announce sometime soon that they've gotten what they needed in order to form a coherent court case. The courts will likely side with GSE because it was the courts who punted the issue in the first place and why we had to have a vote in Trenton today. The supreme court a few years ago said that the legislature absolutely positively had to correct the issue, otherwise the court would be required to step in.
Their decision was unanimous: the legislature fixes it, or we fix it.
Of course, the court can't really step in and say there's a time limit, so we had the vote.
13
Okay, wow, they're even more prepared for this than I thought... GSE released a statement that you can read over at Blue Jersey.
Where's, ah, that slogger from Jersey whose name I can't remember? They can explain better than a wonk like me.
Where's, ah, that slogger from Jersey whose name I can't remember? They can explain better than a wonk like me.
15
Snooki thinks she's not fat, and resents you calling her that, gg.
I'm tempted to dig up my grandma and move her ashes to a better resting place than NJ.
I'm tempted to dig up my grandma and move her ashes to a better resting place than NJ.
17
Loveschild, just out of curiosity, why do you think the rights of the minority should be decided by the majority?
18
here's the statement about going back to court. sounds promising.
http://pamshouseblend.com/diary/14743/re…
http://pamshouseblend.com/diary/14743/re…
21
Loveschild, you are an ass and a bigoted one too. What you have a problem with, apparently, is when appointed officials (like judges) make those decisions. Which is what it's going to come down to since this vote failed, according to Baconcat, so looks like your filthy and perverse joy at the oppression of the minority is short-lived.
By the way, this is not at all a matter for the people to decide. If the people, by popular referenda, had been allowed to choose for themselves on issues of civil rights, blacks still wouldn't be allowed to go into most restaurants in the South. The fact of the matter is, basic civil rights are not up for a vote. The right to marriage is one that cannot be taken away. You want to see an imposition? How about hospitals denying homosexuals the right to visit sick or even dying partners because they're not married under the law.
And I hope that lobbyists do suck it. Why? The vast majority are with you assbags pushing the interests of the tobacco, firearms, insurance, and investment corporations. They are assholes, just like you, you poor sad thing.
Feh. I'm just so sick of people thinking they're good Christians just because they believe in Jeebus, while forgetting entirely to be decent to fellow human beings.
P.S. Suck a dick, Loveschild. I'd not be surprised at all if you were a closeted fag. You know, the kind of person you feel a deep loathing for coupled with an eerie attraction too?
By the way, this is not at all a matter for the people to decide. If the people, by popular referenda, had been allowed to choose for themselves on issues of civil rights, blacks still wouldn't be allowed to go into most restaurants in the South. The fact of the matter is, basic civil rights are not up for a vote. The right to marriage is one that cannot be taken away. You want to see an imposition? How about hospitals denying homosexuals the right to visit sick or even dying partners because they're not married under the law.
And I hope that lobbyists do suck it. Why? The vast majority are with you assbags pushing the interests of the tobacco, firearms, insurance, and investment corporations. They are assholes, just like you, you poor sad thing.
Feh. I'm just so sick of people thinking they're good Christians just because they believe in Jeebus, while forgetting entirely to be decent to fellow human beings.
P.S. Suck a dick, Loveschild. I'd not be surprised at all if you were a closeted fag. You know, the kind of person you feel a deep loathing for coupled with an eerie attraction too?
23
"And the bigots go wild."
Ooh! Ooh! Fundraiser idea! Dan! Guys! Sloggers! Bigots Gone Wild! Someone should make a Girls Gone Wild-style porno with all the people involved wearing a mask of a different anti-marriage equality bigot, be it a lawmaker or a lobbyist or a minister. Then sell copies of it to the sex-positive and pro-marriage equality crowd. Sounds like a winner, MIRITE?
@Thunderwear: Only 375 up until now? Sounds conservative to me.
Ooh! Ooh! Fundraiser idea! Dan! Guys! Sloggers! Bigots Gone Wild! Someone should make a Girls Gone Wild-style porno with all the people involved wearing a mask of a different anti-marriage equality bigot, be it a lawmaker or a lobbyist or a minister. Then sell copies of it to the sex-positive and pro-marriage equality crowd. Sounds like a winner, MIRITE?
@Thunderwear: Only 375 up until now? Sounds conservative to me.
24
So LC, when LEGISLATIVE VOTES go the way you like, you're totally okay with legislatures dictating social agendas. It's only when legislative votes go AGAINST your bigoted, narrow-minded world view that you suddenly start shouting "LET TEH PEOPLEZ DEESIDE!"
Okay, got it. You're (all) an ignorant cunt AND a hypocrite to boot.
Okay, got it. You're (all) an ignorant cunt AND a hypocrite to boot.
25
Isn't Loveschild a woman? Does she know that women's suffrage was put to a vote many times and shot down decisively before it was nationally "forced" upon the country by "activist constitutional amendment writers."
26
@24 Really, is that how you think our government should function?
I thought that the way our government works is for legislatures, senators, representing their constituencies. That means that when a divisive issue such as gay marriage presents itself (by instigation from lobby groups) the representatives of the people need to err on the side of democracy, that means bringing it forth to the people of their communities, states to decide.
You must love those hereditary monarchies that are so bragged about here, do yourself a favor and move to one because that's not the way we the people observe and implement laws over here.
I thought that the way our government works is for legislatures, senators, representing their constituencies. That means that when a divisive issue such as gay marriage presents itself (by instigation from lobby groups) the representatives of the people need to err on the side of democracy, that means bringing it forth to the people of their communities, states to decide.
You must love those hereditary monarchies that are so bragged about here, do yourself a favor and move to one because that's not the way we the people observe and implement laws over here.
27
Jersey City gay community reacts to Senate gay marriage defeat:
New Jersey State Sen. Sandra Cunningham, D-Jersey City, one of the bill’s co-sponsors, urged her fellow senators to support the bill before today’s vote.
She compared the fight for marriage equality to the fight for racial equality.
She said if not for the Civil Rights movement the African-American and minorities might be in the Statehouse.
“We would probably be sweeping the floors instead of sitting here as legislators,” she said. “It’s important for me to stand up and say that everyone has a right and everyone has the right to fight for their life, for the kind of life we all want, the American Dream.”
She encouraged the Senators not to judge. “Our responsibility here is to protect the rights of our citizens,” she said.
Jersey City resident Erik Smith traveled to Trenton hoping to see the bill pass.
Smith, who has been with his partner Eddie Baez for eight years, said he shares a home, health insurance, bank account and other responsibilities with his partner.
“Many of these things we have, have to be documented in very convoluted ways,” he said. “I want a simple and state-sanctioned way to say we are a family and are to be recognized as such complete with all the legal protections and benefits that our heterosexual counterparts take for granted.”
He dismisses the argument that the Equality in Civil Marriage Act is a religious issue.
“We are fighting for civil marriage rights, not religious marriage,” he said. “There is a constitutional separation of church and state in this country, supposedly.”
Any of this sinking in LC? Didn't think so.
New Jersey State Sen. Sandra Cunningham, D-Jersey City, one of the bill’s co-sponsors, urged her fellow senators to support the bill before today’s vote.
She compared the fight for marriage equality to the fight for racial equality.
She said if not for the Civil Rights movement the African-American and minorities might be in the Statehouse.
“We would probably be sweeping the floors instead of sitting here as legislators,” she said. “It’s important for me to stand up and say that everyone has a right and everyone has the right to fight for their life, for the kind of life we all want, the American Dream.”
She encouraged the Senators not to judge. “Our responsibility here is to protect the rights of our citizens,” she said.
Jersey City resident Erik Smith traveled to Trenton hoping to see the bill pass.
Smith, who has been with his partner Eddie Baez for eight years, said he shares a home, health insurance, bank account and other responsibilities with his partner.
“Many of these things we have, have to be documented in very convoluted ways,” he said. “I want a simple and state-sanctioned way to say we are a family and are to be recognized as such complete with all the legal protections and benefits that our heterosexual counterparts take for granted.”
He dismisses the argument that the Equality in Civil Marriage Act is a religious issue.
“We are fighting for civil marriage rights, not religious marriage,” he said. “There is a constitutional separation of church and state in this country, supposedly.”
Any of this sinking in LC? Didn't think so.
29
@25 Sweetie, gender and race (because I know where you're going with this) are not the same as behavior. You want to make a correlation that does not exist, both the Women's Suffrage Movement and the Civil Rights Movement were a fundamental and moral necessity not because they dealt with politics or practices, but because they dealt with intrinsic natural traits made by our Creator, which cannot be subjected to question by man. I hope you show a little more respect for the mother who brought you to this world, or sister(s) (if you have any) before you decide to make such statements again.
30
@29: The same Creator that wrote a book highlighting about how women should be obedient? Oh, okay.
31
Loveschild, you never answered my question: why are the rights of a minority being decided by the majority? Why is that ok with you? Would you be ok if you were the one in the minority?
32
I know this is not a huge consolation, but the fact that the bigots are excited that they won 20-14 is really good news for the non-bigots in the long term. At one time, the bigots would have been shocked if they didn't win unanimously -- or if a bill was just proposed, even if it was never voted on.
33
Hey Loveschild,
It's your husband here. Why are you on the computer downstairs? As you know you are supposed to be cooking my dinner. Now get to it!
It's your husband here. Why are you on the computer downstairs? As you know you are supposed to be cooking my dinner. Now get to it!
34
@26 - It's only a divisive issue because of all the bigots in this country, and the people like you who believe that Christian rights are more important than human rights.
36
Aw, fuck. My girlfriend is from NJ, but we live in MA now, where we can get actual civil rights and all that good stuff.
I guess the gf is right about Jersey being a cesspool of suckage :(
I guess the gf is right about Jersey being a cesspool of suckage :(
37
More importantly for us here in WA is for us to contact our legislators and Governor and show our support for Representative Pedersen's proposed bill recognizing same sex marriages performed out of state (HB 2482).
http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/1468…
http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/1468…
38
I believe that certain rights, such as the right of any group to marry, should not be put up to a vote by the populace. I believe that is a violation of the constitution and the principle of protecting minority rights. I am disappointed that the legislature of New Jersey was unable to secure my right to marry as well.
39
Loveschild, the United States of America was never intended to be an absolute democracy, where everything is subject to the will of the majority. We aren't an ancient Greek city-state. How would you like it if black people, or women, or alleged "Christians" were ostracized, forcibly removed from our country and forced to go elsehwere, or to live under inferior circumstances? Would you still support the will of the people to harm and violate and disenfranchise those groups? Please, for one second, choose to think rationally about something.
40
Loveschild, this is not an issue of democracy. This is an issue of moral populism. Look it up if you have never heard of it before.
It is fatally easy for an idiot to believe that, in order to believe in a democratic system, you must accept the idea of moral populism (or the view that the majority have a moral right to dictate how all shall live). This is a misunderstanding of democracy, on your part, and it menaces individual liberty. How shall I put this ... your biggest mistake, Loveschild, is a failure to distinguish between the acceptable claim that political power is best entrusted to the majority, from the unacceptable claim that what the majority choose to do with that power, is beyond any criticism or legal foundation. Noone that accepts democracy needs to accept the second assertion.
You can search any modern Natural Law theorist, to the most black-and-white, modern Positivist, and what you will find is a consensus that, democracy is the least harmful form of rule; however, there should always be many things that even a democratic government may not be allowed to do. Additionally, there are many things the majority cannot do.
I would argue that, while the purpose of the law is not to hold people to a higher standard of morality, the process of enacting a law is, and always should be, extremely moral. In a free and democratic society, we must always have a common procedure for enacting a law. The United States have a constitution. Law-makers cannot just make laws willy-nilly; they must make laws that work with the constitution--not around it or against it. Reality is that, the constitution is the moral foundation of legal order, and to ignore it, is to create an unjust law. An unjust law, Loveschild, "is no law at all". The constitution is what will prevent the abuse of retroactive legislation, it is what will prevent the legislation of a genocide, it is what will prevent legislation to make incomprehensible laws, and it ensures laws are applied to the general public; not systematically subjugating a small, legal minority. This crap about “mans law” and “gods law”, is not legal philosophy ... it is fucking theology, or some other crap that should never be important for law-makers. In terms of the morality of law, all that should matter is the constitution. It is the moral foundation of law, and it is all that we have. To ignore it, is to give archaic power to the masses, and to legislators.
And ... I just wasted a lot of time writing this out, and I feel so silly. I really do not believe LC will comprehend half of it, and I have the strangest feeling it has all been explained to her before. Anyway, there you go ... a result of reading Lon Fuller and Ronald Dworkin again and again.
More...
It is fatally easy for an idiot to believe that, in order to believe in a democratic system, you must accept the idea of moral populism (or the view that the majority have a moral right to dictate how all shall live). This is a misunderstanding of democracy, on your part, and it menaces individual liberty. How shall I put this ... your biggest mistake, Loveschild, is a failure to distinguish between the acceptable claim that political power is best entrusted to the majority, from the unacceptable claim that what the majority choose to do with that power, is beyond any criticism or legal foundation. Noone that accepts democracy needs to accept the second assertion.
You can search any modern Natural Law theorist, to the most black-and-white, modern Positivist, and what you will find is a consensus that, democracy is the least harmful form of rule; however, there should always be many things that even a democratic government may not be allowed to do. Additionally, there are many things the majority cannot do.
I would argue that, while the purpose of the law is not to hold people to a higher standard of morality, the process of enacting a law is, and always should be, extremely moral. In a free and democratic society, we must always have a common procedure for enacting a law. The United States have a constitution. Law-makers cannot just make laws willy-nilly; they must make laws that work with the constitution--not around it or against it. Reality is that, the constitution is the moral foundation of legal order, and to ignore it, is to create an unjust law. An unjust law, Loveschild, "is no law at all". The constitution is what will prevent the abuse of retroactive legislation, it is what will prevent the legislation of a genocide, it is what will prevent legislation to make incomprehensible laws, and it ensures laws are applied to the general public; not systematically subjugating a small, legal minority. This crap about “mans law” and “gods law”, is not legal philosophy ... it is fucking theology, or some other crap that should never be important for law-makers. In terms of the morality of law, all that should matter is the constitution. It is the moral foundation of law, and it is all that we have. To ignore it, is to give archaic power to the masses, and to legislators.
And ... I just wasted a lot of time writing this out, and I feel so silly. I really do not believe LC will comprehend half of it, and I have the strangest feeling it has all been explained to her before. Anyway, there you go ... a result of reading Lon Fuller and Ronald Dworkin again and again.
41
Loveschild, homosexuality is not an issue of behavior; it is decided in your brain chemistry more or less from day one which way(s) you will swing. See, certain sections of the brain have traits called "sexual dimorphism"; that is, they differ in between the genders. In this case, the difference is in the levels of certain hormones and neurotransmitters. Homosexuals, however, tend to have brain chemistry intermediate between the typical levels for heterosexual men and heterosexual women, and this difference starts in the womb, probably due to typically random fluctuations in the hormones thereof. To wit, gay men have some feminine brain chemistry traits, and lesbians have some masculine brain chemistry traits. If you believe that God creates each individual child, then ask Him why He creates so many queers, as sexual orientation is innate.
Now, I know you won't listen to that, since you are a being composed entirely of blind, ignorant dogma, so here's a better example:
You say that homosexuality is a choice? You know what else is a choice? RELIGION. But are you against Hindus being allowed to get married? Or Jews? Or Buddhists? Or (I'm assuming you're Protestant here) Catholics? Or Druze? Or Zoroastrians? Or Wiccans? I know you think they'll all burn in H-E-double hockey sticks, but it's NOT the role of the state to enforce one's little religious fantasies. If it was, I'd decree that all door-to-door proselytizers plus FOX's entire lineup be sentenced to hang by their pubic hair until severely inconvenienced. Plus you.
Ta-ta, twat-trickler.
Now, I know you won't listen to that, since you are a being composed entirely of blind, ignorant dogma, so here's a better example:
You say that homosexuality is a choice? You know what else is a choice? RELIGION. But are you against Hindus being allowed to get married? Or Jews? Or Buddhists? Or (I'm assuming you're Protestant here) Catholics? Or Druze? Or Zoroastrians? Or Wiccans? I know you think they'll all burn in H-E-double hockey sticks, but it's NOT the role of the state to enforce one's little religious fantasies. If it was, I'd decree that all door-to-door proselytizers plus FOX's entire lineup be sentenced to hang by their pubic hair until severely inconvenienced. Plus you.
Ta-ta, twat-trickler.
42
@40 That would be true if our soceity and those allowed to vote in it were not a reflection of our pluralistic fabric. Everyone is allowed to exercise their right to vote, even gays. So the decisions that come from voting are the result of the microcosms of the whole diverse populations within each states across this nation. You cite the Constitution as our "moral foundation of legal order" and I agree with that, so I ask you, where in it does it says or can be even remotely construed as implying that gay marriage is a right? And it also caught my attention that you rightly stated that "Law-makers cannot just make laws willy-nilly", don't you think that is precisely what has been done in those states where gay marriage has been implemented? At least here in WA there was somewhat of an attempt (tho immensely flawed) of letting the people decide on the partnership extensions.
43
So maybe really, really, really old gay people, or gay people who are celibate by choice—and who therefore aren't behaving in ways the Christers find yucky—should be able to get married? What's that? No, they shouldn't be?
On an unrelated note, why IS it that only (legally recognized) spouses can visiting dying people in hospitals? Where's the harm in letting someone's buddies from work—or whoever—say good-bye?
On an unrelated note, why IS it that only (legally recognized) spouses can visiting dying people in hospitals? Where's the harm in letting someone's buddies from work—or whoever—say good-bye?
45
Loveschild, interracial marriage is a behavior. People of of different races choose to get married. They could choose to marry and have sex with only their own race. Shouldn't the people have gotten to vote on that behavior, rather than letting the courts and government decide for them?
46
@42
You know why your side won, very bad, and you know it has more to do with an unbalanced electoral district policy that gives way too much political clout to this city than to the rest of the state. If it had not been for that and the votes throughout the state really meant something like it does on other states, we would have another story. But until the people of WA take on that issue, you've won on this.
You know why your side won, very bad, and you know it has more to do with an unbalanced electoral district policy that gives way too much political clout to this city than to the rest of the state. If it had not been for that and the votes throughout the state really meant something like it does on other states, we would have another story. But until the people of WA take on that issue, you've won on this.
47
Loveschild, I await the day when you say something that makes sense. People voted, you bigoted shitheads lost, please go cry in a corner somewhere.
48
@ 42 - "You cite the Constitution as our "moral foundation of legal order" and I agree with that, so I ask you, where in it does it says or can be even remotely construed as implying that gay marriage is a right?"
14th Amendment: "...equal protection under the law." One group being able to get married to whom they choose and another not being able to is most definitely NOT equal protection.
14th Amendment: "...equal protection under the law." One group being able to get married to whom they choose and another not being able to is most definitely NOT equal protection.
49
@46 "it has more to do with an unbalanced electoral district policy that gives way too much political clout to this city than to the rest of the state"
All electoral districts have the same population. Human population, that is. Cows and prairie dogs don't count.
All electoral districts have the same population. Human population, that is. Cows and prairie dogs don't count.
51
Goddamn. I am a recovering evangelical, and for years have been phrasing rebuttals in my head to fucked up rhetoric used to justify denying civil rights to people of whom they don't approve--using their own logic against them--and I thought this angle was brilliant. It doesn't surprise me that it's defeated, but it underlines the hypocrisy at work.
52
For fuck's sake....how many defeats for Gay Marriage is this? What the FUCK? How much longer before there is finally a win?
53
Partially @ 46, but more generally:
United States v. Carolene Products: "prejudice against discrete and insular minorities may be a special condition, which tends seriously to curtail the operation of those political processes ordinarily to be relied upon to protect minorities, and which may call for a correspondingly more searching judicial inquiry." ~Justice Harlan Fiske Stone
So, no, minority rights DON'T get subjected to popular political processes - not to the legislatures, not to popular referenda. This has been Supreme Court precedent for over 70 years. Between that and Loving v. Virginia (1967), which declared that "[m]arriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,'" and is therefore subject to the very highest level of judicial scrutiny (and a whole host of other cases that I don't have the time to list here), all existing Constitutional jurisprudence, especially that on the 14th Amendment, shows that current legal doctrine not only suggests, but MANDATES the legalization of gay marriage. And that such measures are not to be at the mercy of the winds of popularity.
The Constitution, in Article III, lays out a countermajoritarian role for the judicial branch, as opposed to the legislature and the executive. That's because the Framers recognized that republicanism could quickly degenerate into mob rule without such judicial scrutiny.
Also - this behavior/identity distinction is bullshit. You can't say that this isn't discrimination against homosexuals, when it's precisely the homosexuality of the two participants that makes the behavior objectionable to you.
(I'll be the first to admit that law school has made me an insufferable know-it-all.)
United States v. Carolene Products: "prejudice against discrete and insular minorities may be a special condition, which tends seriously to curtail the operation of those political processes ordinarily to be relied upon to protect minorities, and which may call for a correspondingly more searching judicial inquiry." ~Justice Harlan Fiske Stone
So, no, minority rights DON'T get subjected to popular political processes - not to the legislatures, not to popular referenda. This has been Supreme Court precedent for over 70 years. Between that and Loving v. Virginia (1967), which declared that "[m]arriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,'" and is therefore subject to the very highest level of judicial scrutiny (and a whole host of other cases that I don't have the time to list here), all existing Constitutional jurisprudence, especially that on the 14th Amendment, shows that current legal doctrine not only suggests, but MANDATES the legalization of gay marriage. And that such measures are not to be at the mercy of the winds of popularity.
The Constitution, in Article III, lays out a countermajoritarian role for the judicial branch, as opposed to the legislature and the executive. That's because the Framers recognized that republicanism could quickly degenerate into mob rule without such judicial scrutiny.
Also - this behavior/identity distinction is bullshit. You can't say that this isn't discrimination against homosexuals, when it's precisely the homosexuality of the two participants that makes the behavior objectionable to you.
(I'll be the first to admit that law school has made me an insufferable know-it-all.)
56
When black people fought for civil rights they did not also demand they be called "white people". But gays not only want civil rights, they also want to be called something they are not, "MARRIED". Calling a gay couple "married" is just as stupid as calling a black person "white".
Gay people should be granted marriage licenses when blind people are granted driver's licenses. Both gays and blind people have a disability. Give them handicapped parking permits but never give them marriage or driver's licenses.
Gay people should be granted marriage licenses when blind people are granted driver's licenses. Both gays and blind people have a disability. Give them handicapped parking permits but never give them marriage or driver's licenses.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
SL Letter of the Day: Daddy Loves Who? by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Life Sentence by Dan Savage
-
Crowdsourcing Uncut Police Video from the Dec. 12 Occupy Protest at the Port of Seattle by Eli Sanders
-
Slog Bible Study: Deuteronomy 21:10-14 by Goldy
-
The AP Is Reporting That Whitney Houston Is Dead by Paul Constant
-
The Onion Is on a Roll: "Iran Worried U.S. Might Be Building 8,500th Nuclear Weapon" by Charles Mudede
-
Announcing The Stranger's Tournament of Dunces! Who's the Dumbest Representative in the State House? by Christopher Frizzelle
-
Survey Says: Cyclists Would Rather Give Up Sex Than Their Bikes by Bethany Jean Clement
-
Stranger Tournament of Dunces, Match 3: Rep. Mark Hargrove vs. Rep. Norma Smith by Eli Sanders
-
Jeremy Lin Saves the NBA by Charles Mudede
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (56) RSS