Patterico's Pontifications

5/26/2008

David Savage: There is a Bare Stable Majority Against Gay Marriage

Filed under: Dog Trainer,General — Patterico @ 7:43 am

David Savage reports that the California move towards gay marriage is unlikely to result in a national trend. Part of the reason? A “stable majority” against gay marriage:

However, recent national polls have shown what the Pew Research Center called a “stable majority” opposed to marriage for gays and lesbians. Last year, it said that among those it surveyed, 55% opposed allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally, whereas 36% supported the idea. This was roughly the same result as in 2004, when the Massachusetts court ruled.

It is also similar to the Los Angeles Times/KTLA Poll of Californians taken last week. By a 19-point margin, respondents favored a measure targeted for the November ballot that would limit marriage to a man and a woman.

Get with the program, David! This 19-point margin of which you speak is no “stable majority.” It’s a “bare majority.” Also a narrow margin. Voters are only slimly and narrowly rejecting gay marriage, by a bit.

Don’t you read your own paper?

70 Responses to “David Savage: There is a Bare Stable Majority Against Gay Marriage”

  1. In all seriousness: isn’t it sad when David Savage’s take is less patently biased than is the paper’s straight-news take?

    Mitch (accea5)

  2. I don’t see a problem here. Obviously 55% constitutes a stable majority, while 54% is just a bare majority. That one percent makes all the difference.

    /dogtrainer

    aunursa (4b9f99)

  3. [yawn]
    This particular trope got old about the second day, Patterico.
    Surely there has to be other stuff you can rant about besides the LA Times…I mean, the LATimes makes it easy to rant, but it is kind of boring. Especially for those of us who don’t live anywhere near LA.

    Off to fire up the grill.

    kishnevi (33a0bd)

  4. Success is within our grasp! As soon as we cross the 50%+1 line of approval, we’re making gay marriages mandatory.

    Sweet.

    DW 5000 (1a2fa5)

  5. I got surveyed yesterday morning.

    The pollster asked me my opinion about the California Supreme Court decision and about the Constitutional amendment to be voted on this November. I didn’t liveblog the survey (wish I had), but I think the questions asking my opinion of arguments in support of same-sex marriage may have outnumbered the questions regarding arguments opposing it by about 2:1.

    Some of that may be perception bias. Some of it may not. Some of it is the poll’s conflation of “the right of gays to marry” and “the right of people to marry someone of the same sex”. The poll takes no account of the fact that gays have the right to marry under the same terms and conditions that a straight can.

    The reason I think the skew in the polling questions is due to more than perception bias on my part is one question that was asked three times during the course of the poll: “During the course of a survey, it’s not uncommon for a person to change his mind. If you were to vote now, would you vote to support or oppose the amendment to the State Constitution?” (I’d love to know if people who expressed support for same-sex marriage were asked that question as many times.)

    This question was asked after a series of questions about how convincing I found various arguments in support of same-sex marriage. To me, it felt a lot like the poll was designed to argue the case for same-sex marriage, and ask “Are you convinced yet?”

    If this poll is being reported to any news media, don’t be surprised to see opposition to same-sex marriage declining.

    Karl Lembke (49d32e)

  6. [yawn]
    This particular trope got old about the second day, Patterico.
    Surely there has to be other stuff you can rant about besides the LA Times…I mean, the LATimes makes it easy to rant, but it is kind of boring. Especially for those of us who don’t live anywhere near LA.

    Of course. My top goal in life is to entertain you, for no money. What can I write about that would interest you? Please, please tell me.

    Patterico (cb443b)

  7. “P”…
    Some people seem to forget what the central focus of this blog is.
    Since I rarely read the LAT, I find it a convenient way to keep up on the foibles at City Hall, etc.
    Keep up the good work!

    What would be nice is to know when the Editorial Staff will schedule a public ceremony of ritual sepiku – but that would require a sense of honor: A trait that seems to be in short supply within their profession.

    Another Drew (8018ee)

  8. Free ice cream for everyone!

    SPQR (26be8b)

  9. They’re going about this in a very lazy-minded, pussy-foot fashion. The usual tactic would be to point glaringly to the large numbers against gay marriage – exaggerate them, even – and declare that this is proof that legal activism is needed to overcome deep-seated prejudice. In other words, fight prejudicially-defined prejudice with actual legal prejudice.

    Glen Wishard (02562c)

  10. Of course. My top goal in life is to entertain you, for no money. What can I write about that would interest you? Please, please tell me.

    How come peanut butter and jelly sandwiches always fall sticky side down?

    nk (a415e7)

  11. Of course. My top goal in life is to entertain you, for no money. What can I write about that would interest you? Please, please tell me.

    Why is the square of the hypotenuse equal to the square of the adjacent plus the square of the opposite?

    Paul (de3f43)

  12. Paul, because the triangle is “right” and oppresses other triangles on behalf of “the man” because it does not see the miracle of Obama.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  13. SPQR #12:

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

    Paul (de3f43)

  14. What can I write about that would interest you? Please, please tell me.

    I’ll settle for something that doesn’t involve berating the LA Times.

    Heck, at this point berating the LAPD would work.

    Unless you think only people from California are interested in what you say, which isn’t true.

    kishnevi (d50358)

  15. Patterico,

    I license these Terms Of Use to you, for valuable consideration in hand paid the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged.

    But … still … why do they call an orange an orange and they don’t call a banana a yellow?

    nk (a415e7)

  16. I knew there was ice cream.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  17. and they don’t call a banana a yellow?

    That’s what a friend from Puerto Rico called them.

    /Well, “amarillos” really, but same thing.

    EW1(SG) (84e813)

  18. kishnevi,

    Perhaps you missed the masthead … and Patterico’s exhaustive annual Dog Trainer Year-in-Review. In case you hadn’t noticed, criticism of the LA Times is a staple of this blog.

    aunursa (d72de8)

  19. Yeah, if you love the biased, liberal media like the Times (both), CNN, MSNBC, etc., what are you doing wasting your time here. You might enjoy the KOS.

    Alta Bob (53a695)

  20. Everybody is testy, lately. Including me. And who would have thunk DRJ would leave? Is it sunspots?

    nk (a415e7)

  21. I thinks we needs to get warm and fuzzy.

    nk (a415e7)

  22. Slow day, eh>

    OK, here’s something new. The BC govt, to garner its poser points, wants to capture CO2 and, sigh, store it in the ground, like the world’s biggest fart just waiting to be released.

    Unsurprisingly, large dollars will be used to subsidize the project:

    Spectra Energy Corp. will study building a $12 million carbon sequestration facility at its natural gas plant in northeastern British Columbia, the company and province said on Monday.

    The provincial government has agreed to pay $3.4 million to look at the geological feasibility of permanently storing captured carbon dioxide and hydrogen sulfide in a reservoir two kilometers (1.3 miles) underground.

    Spectra said the facility in Fort Nelson has the potential to store about one million tonnes of carbon dioxide produced by industrial emitters annually, which would be the equivalent of taking 250,000 cars off the highway.

    The Western Canadian province is looking to carbon sequestration to help meet its goal of reducing emissions of greenhouse gases linked to global warming by 33 percent by 2020.

    Govt, is there anything it can’t do?

    ras (fc54bb)

  23. p.s. If you think I was just being cute … nuh uh, cuz remember:

    Hydrogen sulfide (or hydrogen sulphide) is the chemical compound with the formula H2S. This colorless, toxic and flammable gas is responsible for the foul odour of rotten eggs and flatulence.

    Our gasbag pols can beat your gasbag pols any day.

    ras (fc54bb)

  24. Of course. My top goal in life is to entertain you, for no money. What can I write about that would interest you? Please, please tell me.
    Comment by Patterico — 5/26/2008 @ 11:16 am

    If the balloting is still open, I think there would be wide support for drunk babes in bikinis who like automatic weapons. With pictures. And videos. Lots of them.

    The current stuff is good and much-appreciated of course… but since you asked.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  25. I second Stashiu3′s motion…

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  26. Judicial idiots who elected them to make our decisions for us?

    krazy kagu (eb0daf)

  27. Every time they start polling on something like this, it always moves toward their desired outcome. They will do another poll in a month or so and report a “trend” toward acceptance of their agenda. It never moves in the opposite direction…always to the left.

    The next one they do will be a sham but the perception of trending that they report will create a bandwagon effect that will lead to a majority surrendering to what they will be led to believe is an unstoppable trend toward fag wedding acceptance.

    j curtis (c84b9e)

  28. How come peanut butter and jelly sandwiches always fall sticky side down?

    Because you haven’t attached the cat yet…

    Adriane (09d132)

  29. ‘fag wedding’

    Nice. Really nice. That’s akin to saying “nigger lover”, and frankly, the GOP is still reeling from the effects of its close association with racism in the 1950s onward. The GOP abandoned the ideals of Lincoln for those of Thurmond, and while the democrats aren’t any better, blacks know instinctively that hatred stirs in the heart of the right wing. And of course, many democrats are haters of gays and blacks, etc, but the Democrats are going to be the champions of equal protection under the laws for gays. Gays are more educated and less criminal, and more powerful politically than straights, per capita. The GOP might have to wait 100 years to win their hearts over.

    And the fact is, our young are familiar with homosexuality, realize it’s not a threat to them, and have no problem, indeed desire, gay civil unions or marriage. It’s a basic tenet of our entire reason for having a republic that people should get the same shot at happiness. In 30 years, the same dominant majority that favors mixed race couples and loves MLK will favor gay marriage.

    And that will spell just a little more doom for the GOP. It’s a shame, because the GOP is the best hope for our nation against its actual threat: Islamists, what’s left of communists, and lack of energy. The gay marriage battle yields short term gains and long term harm for the GOP, just like Segregation.

    It’s sad to see people loss sight of priorities, but when people ridicule “fag marriage”, it’s clear we’re dealing with assholes, not patriots.

    Jem (4cdfb7)

  30. Jem, if you can explain what ‘same-sex union between a man and a woman’ means without engaging in irrational emotionalism then I would support your proposal.

    Further, it is a fallacy to say that ‘same-sex union between a man and a woman’ is a civil rights issue since homosexuals have NOT been banned from marriage; in fact homosexuals have been marrying since the dawn of marriage, plus they even manage to procreate.

    Of course, any reasonable person understands that in order to procreate there must be a sperm and an egg; like Camile Paglia remarked that gay activists have forgotten that the primary function of the sex organs is for reproduction.

    “Homosexuality’ isn’t a threat it is a behavior; the threat is the irrational emotionalism used to change words and their meaning whereby redefining the meaning of ‘is’ in order to establish a law of convenience.

    Case in point, take the word ‘fetus’. Since it was never defined and it’s meaning can change according to gender(usually to benefit She), need and time our culture has devolved into a madcap of emotional basketcases.

    Of course, we women in general have always relied on the insanity of our very irrational emotions to help us ‘break the glass ceiling’ so it is no wonder the female population in our country is hooked on Prozac and Oprah Winfrey.

    I was young and fell for the sisterhood crazy abortion thing, now I’m older and won’t be making the same mistake with the ‘same-sex union between a man and a woman’ thing; fact is, I can’t stand listening to queenies (whichever gender) whine anymore about how they’re miserable all the time.

    syn (1017f1)

  31. One more point, Jem. I suggest you read up on the history of the Republican Party since you appear to hold the same view I did when I was a brain-dead liberal.

    syn (1017f1)

  32. GOP is still reeling from the effects of its close association with racism in the 1950s onward.

    Jem, those Govenors and legislators who were most against integration and civil rights didn’t have R by their name. These days, they never have a letter there, becase if they did, you’d have to see a D next to such fine, lovely people as McGovern…

    Scott Jacobs (d3a6ec)

  33. Let me point you in the direction syn mentions, but definitely look it up… you’ll be shocked at what you find.

    the GOP is still reeling from the effects of its close association with racism in the 1950s onward.

    It was the GOP that fought for civil rights… the Dems were against it mostly until it was a done deal.

    The GOP abandoned the ideals of Lincoln for those of Thurmond, and while the democrats aren’t any better, blacks know instinctively that hatred stirs in the heart of the right wing.

    Thurmond was a segregationist and a Democrat until 1964 when he became a McCain-style Republican. People don’t know anything like that by instinct… it’s a learned behavior, this one in particular promoted by the DNC and the MSM.

    Gays are more educated and less criminal, and more powerful politically than straights, per capita.

    Wrong and irrelevent.

    but when people ridicule “fag marriage”, it’s clear we’re dealing with assholes, not patriots.

    Most of us would agree completely with you on this one. It was a tactless comment of an ignorant view. That doesn’t mean it represents the GOP or conservatives. No matter if you support or are against gay marriage, you need to learn more about the Republicans than what you’ve been fed in school and from the MSM. I was a Republican for a long time and still had to unlearn a lot of that stuff.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  34. It’s a basic tenet of our entire reason for having a republic that people should get the same shot at happiness.

    You can’t be happy without the word marriage being applied to your relationship? That sounds sour, not gay.

    Pablo (99243e)

  35. Homophobes, one and all.

    JD (75f5c3)

  36. You can’t be happy without the word marriage being applied to your relationship?

    And here I thought you couldn’t be happy WHILE married… I kept wondering “Sweet jesus, they WANT to get married? Do they not like their SO anymore?”

    Scott Jacobs (fa5e57)

  37. You can’t be happy without the word marriage being applied to your relationship?

    If people are looking to words to validate their relationship, or to make them happy, they are not likely to find what they are looking for.

    JD (75f5c3)

  38. what can i write about that would interest you? please, please tell me.

    the female breast is a topic of enduring fascination.

    assistant devil's advocate (3a8187)

  39. I am with ada on that one …

    JD (75f5c3)

  40. Jem, those Govenors and legislators who were most against integration and civil rights didn’t have R by their name. These days, they never have a letter there, becase if they did, you’d have to see a D next to such fine, lovely people as McGovern…

    I was unaware that McGovern was against integration and civil rights. Got a reference for that?

    aphrael (db0b5a)

  41. #29 Jem:

    the GOP is still reeling from the effects of its close association with racism in the 1950s onward.

    As syn and Stash have already mentioned, you need to check out the history of the Republican party for yourself a little more closely. There have been attempts in the past by individuals (e.g., David Duke) and groups of disaffected Dems (like the Dixiecrats) to take political advantage of a change of affiliation under the Republican banner, but the Republican party is still the abolitionist party it was founded as, and the one that tipped the balance in favor of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, voting much more strongly for it than the Dems.

    As a pretty conservative guy, I’m not particularly in favor of SSM, although I’m a pretty stout supporter of the Pink Pistols. In practice, I think DADT works pretty well, and don’t think it likely that the military will ever return to using homosexuality as a discriminating factor in determining suitability for enlistment or accession to the officer corps. (I think an earlier, Cold War era prime motivation for screening was determining susceptability to blackmail~which was frequently used to compromise the Armed Forces, among others. I don’t think that concern is worrisome now.)

    As far as the GOP’s perceived “racism” goes, that has more to do with the historic stance of conservatism against governmental interference than racism. As the thrust of the Democratic party became social engineering, more Southern conservative Dems left the Dem party to align themselves with the Repubs in the 60s & 70s against massive social welfare intrusion by the government, leading to allegations of discrimination. Honestly, I’d much rather be voting for J.C. Watts than J.S. McCain, and I know quite a few other conservatives that feel the same way.

    I guess what I am trying to say is that there are many, MANY valid human rights issues that need to be addressed and should take precedence over SSM; and I think it less than helpful for well meaning individuals to allow perpetuation of the myth that somehow conservatism (and Republicans, minus their leadership at the moment) has a history of fighting to deny rights…when I think it demonstrable that one of the core values of conservatism is human rights.

    EW1(SG) (84e813)

  42. (I think an earlier, Cold War era prime motivation for screening was determining susceptability to blackmail~which was frequently used to compromise the Armed Forces, among others.

    I would argue that DADT makes blackmail more likely than allowing openly gay soldiers to serve. It’s much easier to blackmail someone who isn’t allowed to tell than it is to blackmail someone who has already told.

    aphrael (db0b5a)

  43. #42 aphrael:

    I would argue that DADT makes blackmail more likely

    Then you would argue incorrectly.

    The point is that the service doesn’t discriminate on entry, and the servicemember doesn’t flaunt their homosexuality in a working environment composed of individuals with disparate belief systems.

    The treat of being “outed” by a blackmailer is something esle entirely: a threat to the servicemember and, coincidentally, the service which the investigative offices of the service in question are duty bound to deal with.

    Since the servicemember didn’t violate policy of their own volition, there isn’t any grounds for repercussions against them.

    EW1(SG) (84e813)

  44. The “treat?” Aitches seem to be running a bit short on my keyboard today.

    EW1(SG) (84e813)

  45. It’s much easier to blackmail someone who isn’t allowed to tell than it is to blackmail someone who has already told.

    Unless your blackmail threat is to inform someone who isn’t allowed to ask.

    Pablo (99243e)

  46. I was unaware that McGovern was against integration and civil rights. Got a reference for that?

    You’re quite right, I have no idea where McGovern came from. I had intended to name a Gov., and apparently my brain mis-fired. That’s what you get for using damn, surplus ammo, I guess…

    I had, of cource, meant to name Wallace, a shining star of Democrat politics.

    And lets not forget that while Kennedy voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1957, he did so only after voting in favor of the addition of the “Jury Trial Amendment”, thus rendering the Act all but toothless.

    But leave us not pick nits over which party not only has a history of actively supporting segregation and bigoty, but remains to this day unable to do anything but notice the color of a man’s skin.

    Scott Jacobs (fa5e57)

  47. That should have been “That’s what you get for using damp, surplus ammo, I guess…”

    Apparently, I need a nap…

    Scott Jacobs (fa5e57)

  48. “‘fag wedding’

    Nice. Really nice. That’s akin to saying “nigger lover”, and frankly, the GOP is still reeling from the effects of its close association with racism in the 1950s onward. ”

    50 years from now some people are going to look like the george wallaces and the roger taneys of our time.

    “There have been attempts in the past by individuals (e.g., David Duke) and groups of disaffected Dems (like the Dixiecrats) to take political advantage of a change of affiliation under the Republican banner, but the Republican party is still the abolitionist party it was founded as, and the one that tipped the balance in favor of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, voting much more strongly for it than the Dems.”

    Exactly why we shouldn’t confuse ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal’ with ‘republican’ and ‘democrat.’

    stef (8bb588)

  49. but when people ridicule “fag marriage”, it’s clear we’re dealing with assholes, not patriots.

    Most of us would agree completely with you on this one.

    Libs have all kinds of strange ideas about what patriotism is.

    And anyway, I didn’t say “fag marriage”, that’s a bit crass sounding. I said “fag wedding” which evokes all kinds of extravagant colorful imagery.

    I think the homosexual community should embrace the term.

    j curtis (c84b9e)

  50. But leave us not pick nits over which party not only has a history of actively supporting segregation and bigoty

    I mostly agree; i’m basically disinterested in the “my party is better than your party” debate. I just want to be sure that either (a) the right men’s names are being blackened or (b) my deficiency in knowledge is remedied. :)

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  51. The treat of being “outed” by a blackmailer is something esle entirely: a threat to the servicemember and, coincidentally, the service which the investigative offices of the service in question are duty bound to deal with.

    Sure.

    And a servicemember who is secretly gay has more reasson to fear having that secret revealed than a servicemember who is openly gay.

    Even if you are right that revalation in such circumstances would not result in any harm to the servicemember in question, the important question is not would the servicemember be harmed but rather would the servicemember be sufficiently afraid that harm would result. If he’s sufficiently afraid, he’s easier to blackmail.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  52. Anything can be imagined and human beings, being blessed cursed with language, can articulate anything they can imagine.

    When young, I read a book, “TheMarine”, which made this statement about homosexuals and secret information: “Give a queer his meat and he’ll spill his guts.” About twenty years later, Hollywood’s “Kiss of the Spider Woman” said pretty much the same thing.

    Well, I’m a lawyer and my job is to separate reality from imagination. When was a male Delilah more successful than a female one? When was a homosexual blackmailed into betraying his country just to keep himself from being outed?

    nk (a415e7)

  53. NK: the fear that a gay person might give in to blackmail to prevent himself from being outed is one of the reasons that gay people were long denied security clearances. Either (a) that policy was unreasonable, or (b) there was something to the concern.

    If (b), then surely being secretly gay is more of a concern than being openly gay; you can’t out someone who is out.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  54. I think the homosexual community should embrace the term.

    They haven’t, though, and until/unless they do, you should not be using the word yourself.

    That said, I do find it interesting how many formerly anti-gay slurs the gay community has adopted as their own. If memory serves, the word “gay” itself originated this way; “queer” certainly did. The only other group I can think of who is as good at turning linguistic lemons into lemonades are the gunnies, who happily self-describe as “gun nuts,” “people of the gun,” “bitter gun owners,” or whatever other goofy label their opponents may lob at them from time to time.

    Xrlq (b71926)

  55. Ask for proof (incidents), Aphrael. Not just imagining.

    nk (a415e7)

  56. One thing Jem left out, and I’m not saying she is entirely incorrect, is that one reason the young might be “on board” with gay marriage is that it’s advocates have learned how to attach the hater label to any who disagree. To my mind, this is not a solid foundation for a long term love, it’s blackmail.

    Also, let’s be honest, the young are often stupid and more obsessed with sexuality than is probably good for them.

    Education Guy (5c7c7c)

  57. I don’t agree with DADT and never have. I knew many active-duty that were gay and most straights never cared. What matters is whether you can count on the person or not, who they sleep with shouldn’t matter. I’d like to see them get rid of DADT and let gays serve openly. The whole idea of DADT undermines the core value of honor because you have to pretend things are different than the reality.

    I’d also like to see government out of the marriage business, SSM or traditional. As far as the state goes, marriage should be a civil contract… the term marriage is a social one. Leave it to the churches.

    Stashiu3 (460dc1)

  58. Patterico, you need to immediately resign because anyone who asks people who work and write for the L.A. Times to read it can only be thought of as advocating cruel and unusual punishment.

    Fritz (46a651)

  59. j curtis,

    I just saw your comment with the term “fag wedding” and I just want to register my disapproval and my request that you not speak like that on my message board again.

    Patterico (cb443b)

  60. lead article on the front page of today’s sf chronicle (www.sfgate.com), a field poll released today shows californians favor gay marriage by a 51-42 percent margin. staff writer john wildermuth referred to this as a “slim majority”.

    assistant devil's advocate (08f9aa)

  61. Gay marriage is only favored 51-42% in San Francisco?!

    JD (75f5c3)

  62. statewide poll, jd. protestants mostly opposed, catholics nearly evenly split, “others” strongly in favor. coastal areas in favor, inland opposed. it’s also a generational thing, and the grim reaper is preferentially scything down the opponents, so gay marriage is inevitable – get used to it folks!

    assistant devil's advocate (08f9aa)

  63. Interesting that the poll numbers do not closely match up with their actions at the ballot box. Just sayin’

    JD (75f5c3)

  64. Homophobes.

    JD (75f5c3)

  65. gay marriage is inevitable – get used to it folks!

    Nope. I’m staying with my wife. We have a child to raise.

    nk (a415e7)

  66. so gay marriage is inevitable – get used to it folks!

    Ok…

    But you’re catching…

    Scott Jacobs (fa5e57)

  67. “Nope. I’m staying with my wife. We have a child to raise.”

    I wonder how much of the opposition this actually explains.

    stef (1b7248)

  68. #51 aphrael:

    If he’s sufficiently afraid, he’s easier to blackmail.

    I’m guessing that you have never served: all of my kids worked with classified material, and I made damn sure that all of them were far more afraid of what I would do to them if they compromised it than any consequence a potential blackmailer could threaten them with. Cleaning the shitters until 12 days after the Apocalypse is over is a far more tangible threat than what’s gonna happen to them if they don’t tell me.

    And I think that you still don’t quite understand that it is okay to be gay in the military, that the only onus on teh gay servicemember is not to engage in disruptive behavior that rises to the level of requiring official recognition or action.

    EW1(SG) (84e813)

  69. I once told my dad that if I ever worked for the Govt, and someone called and said “give us information, or we kill your father”, I’d have them relay my farewells…

    Scott Jacobs (fa5e57)

  70. #57 Stashiu3:

    and most straights never cared.

    And that’s the only redeeming value of DADT: its surprising how many do care. There are certainly subcommunities within the larger overall framework of the military, I would guess for example, the medical community, where it is less of an issue because the members of that community are less judgemental to begin with.

    EW1(SG) (84e813)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.4424 secs.