Whatever the merits of the argument for same-sex marriage (and I think they are meager indeed, resulting from a simple misunderstanding of what marriage is and how necessary it is for living a good and full life), its advocates don’t think they can be appreciated at a popular level.
Hence the effort at every point to circumvent democratic procedures: to skirt referenda with legislative votes and legislative votes with judicial rulings. If gay marriage is ratified across the country, it will be elites whom we can thank or fault, not the American voter.
Writing in Public Discourse, Paul Linton gives a delicious sketch of how the determination of Illinois’ political class to bring about gay marriage has led to an undemocratic circus worthy of the Ringlings:
The lawsuits, which raise only state, not federal, constitutional claims, name a single defendant, David Orr, the Cook County Clerk . . . Mr. Orr, a longtime advocate of same-sex marriage, has announced his support for the plaintiffs’ lawsuits, has expressed his opinion that the failure to recognize same-sex relationships as marriages is unconstitutional, and has stated that he expects his counsel, Anita Alvarez, the State’s Attorney of Cook County, to support his position, which she has now done. She has filed an answer in each case admitting that the reservation of marriage to opposite-sex couples violates the equal protection guarantees of the Illinois Constitution.
In the meantime, Lisa Madigan, the Attorney General of Illinois (and daughter of Michael Madigan, the powerful Speaker of the Illinois House of Representatives), has filed petitions to intervene in both cases, not to defend the existing law, which one would normally expect the Attorney General to do when the constitutionality of a state statute is drawn into question, but to attack the law. At this point, there is no one in either case who is willing to defend the law. A lawsuit in which both sides support the same result is, to say the least, odd.
An uncharitable mind might be tempted to believe that these lawsuits are collusive, i.e., that they were brought with the understanding (express or implied) that neither the defendant (Mr. Orr), nor his attorney (Ms. Alvarez), nor the Attorney General (Ms. Madigan) would defend the challenge . . .
One of the most odd results of this byzantine strategy is that it could result in gay marriage being legal only in Cook County and not in the rest of the state. It’s all of a piece with the rest of the movement toward gay marriage: twisted logic (marriage is whatever we say it is, and for the moment that is a union between any two people who have sex and love each other), twisted science (asserting that same-sex couples raise children as well, on average, as opposite-sex ones even when studies don’t agree), twisted judicial rulings (Vaughan Walker, enough said), and the distortion of democracy (Illinois, overturning Prop. 8, etc).
It’s a shame. There are real arguments to be had over marriage. Our current settlement—no-fault divorce for opposite-sex couples (never mind the needs of the kids) but no marriage at all for same-sex ones—is inconsistent and unsustainable.
The problem is that one side is determined to skirt the argument altogether in their rush to an undemocratic endzone. There are reasons for this, of course: if one thinks same-sex marriage is a human right, then it should not be subject to popular will.
But this belief, however entrenched in right-thinking circles, lacks a pedigree in our Constitution, laws, or religious traditions. It is not shared by the vast majority of Americans. An elite consensus is not a popular consensus, though it can become one. That’s why we need to deliberate—calmly, openly, and democratically—before embracing a social change all parties see as significant.
June 21st, 2012 | 12:53 pm
It’s a shame. There are real arguments to be had over marriage.
But their goal is not good citizenship.
What they want is to get “their way” – with as little resistance as possible.
The people pushing gay marriage don’t want to argue over what marriage is.
What I think is ironic about it: they are the ones who claim to “believe in evolution”. But they don’t trust its workings. They continue to cling to the view that an elite can and should decide for an entire nation what is good for the whole body (like a brain deciding on behalf of an entire organism what’s what, ignoring input from the other systems because it’s the brain, so of course it knows best!).
June 21st, 2012 | 1:10 pm
[...] The Undemocratic Scramble Toward Same-Sex Marriage - Matthew Schmitz, First Things/First Thoughts [...]
June 21st, 2012 | 1:23 pm
The notion that some rights are beyond the jurisdiction of any popular vote has merit. One has say, freedom of religion, speech, self defense etc. that are inalienable, as it says in the Declaration of Independence.
However, this principle is predicated on the fact that there is Something greater than an human consensus, greater that humanity itself from Whom (or at least Which) our rights come.
Are advocates of gay marriage willing to invoke Natural Law? And if so, are they willing to accept (nay, advocate) the consequences of such acceptance in other areas of jurisprudence?
June 21st, 2012 | 2:38 pm
The problem is that one side is determined to skirt the argument altogether in their rush to an undemocratic endzone.
How in the world can anyone say such a thing? Thirty-one states have amendments banning same-sex marriage. Forty-one states in one way or another define marriage as only between a man and a woman. Did this somehow come about undemocratically?
In all of those state referendums to ban same-sex marriage, was there anything at all put on the ballot about no-fault divorce or any other issue about heterosexual marriage? If the debate about same-sex marriage needs to include marriage in general, thirty states so far have utterly failed to incorporate issues like no-fault divorce and out-of-wedlock births into the same-sex-marriage debate.
But why must a debate over same-sex marriage be used as the opportunity to discuss heterosexual marriage and issues like no-fault divorce? Is there not reason enough already to discuss heterosexual marriage? There’s a 50% divorce rate, 41% of births are out-of-wedlock (Asians 17%, whites 29%, Hispanics 53%, Native Americans 66%, blacks 72%), and of women with two or more children, 28% concevied them by two or more fathers. And we need a democratic debate about same-sex marriage as an opportunity to talk about all that?
I don’t think opponents of same-sex marriage want to discuss the problems of heterosexual marriage. It’s much, much easier to get a majority to oppose same-sex marriage when they know that it will not affect them in any way.
The Public Interest article begins, “Illinois is now ‘ground zero’ in the ongoing battle to preserve traditional marriage.” Traditional marriage can’t be preserved. As a matter of law, we don’t have it any more. Traditional marriage would have to be restored. Traditional marriage and no-fault divorce can’t co-exist. (Of course, many individual traditional marriages continue to exist because of religious convictions or personal convictions.)
I am sure those fighting to legalize same-sex marriage would have loved to see some reform of heterosexual marriage as part of the state amendments banning same-sex marriage. I think it’s a pretty sure bet that amendments that banned same-sex marriage and no-fault divorce would have passed in few if any states. I think just about the last thing opponents of same-sex marriage would like to see is the banning of same-sex marriage couple with the strengthening of heterosexual marriage.
June 21st, 2012 | 4:27 pm
David,
Are marriages strengthened by laws or the people who choose to enter them?
Whether people choose to practice the virtues of the institute or not doesn’t change the state’s interest in a legally and socially coherent license that people obtain.
June 21st, 2012 | 4:27 pm
How in the world can anyone say such a thing? Thirty-one states have amendments banning same-sex marriage. Forty-one states in one way or another define marriage as only between a man and a woman. Did this somehow come about undemocratically?
Are you counting California’s Prop 8?
June 21st, 2012 | 5:18 pm
Dave Nickol, I had to read your comment twice to make sure I understood you. Best comment I have ever heard from you and I agree, with the single exception being where you say that traditional marriage no longer exists. Many of the people that I know are in functional, loving traditional marriages. That being said I do agree with the sense in which I think you meant even that.
I recall a story about Bill Bennett being the keynote speaker at a moral majority event and ( I’m paraphrasing) he made the comment that, while we get all upset about the gay agenda there is a much more distructive social issue of which many of the people in this room have partaken or are supportive of, Divorce. From what I heard an embarassed silence filled the room.
June 21st, 2012 | 5:51 pm
Are marriages strengthened by laws or the people who choose to enter them?
MPB,
I am assuming that Matthew Schmitz (and most supporters of traditional marriage) would say that no-fault divorce has significantly weakened marriage. It’s an interesting question, though, what influence government has on marriage. Was no-fault divorce adopted by most states in a rather short time because more people wanted to get a divorce, or did the adoption of no-fault divorce laws cause an increase in divorce? And for conservatives who believe in traditional marriage but also believe in keeping government “off the backs of the American people,” is it the business of the government to try to strengthen marriage now by passing more restrictive divorce laws?
June 21st, 2012 | 5:57 pm
Are you counting California’s Prop 8?
Blake,
Of course. Thirty states enact amendments that ban same-sex marriage, and one of those states maybe will have the ban struck down by the courts. If I were fighting against same-sex marriage, I would be thrilled with those odds.
Also, I wouldn’t say fighting something in the courts is undemocratic. “Obamacare” was passed by the House and Senate, and its opponents are trying to get it struck down by the courts. People seem to object to the courts as undemocratic when other people use them, but when it’s their own cause, no one ever says, “We’d appeal this in court, but that would be undemocratic.”
June 21st, 2012 | 7:03 pm
David,
I don’t know what to make of your argument.
The argument here is that the executive branch offices responsible for defending the law are choosing to argue that the law is unconstitutional. And that not due to some recent change in the law but with regards to a long standing understanding of the law. The conclusion is that something unseemly is happening.
Do you have a counter argument better than we should change the subject because changing the subject is something that should not be done?
June 21st, 2012 | 7:04 pm
Of course. Thirty states enact amendments that ban same-sex marriage, and one of those states maybe will have the ban struck down by the courts
So you’re saying that gay activists aren’t planning on using the courts to strike down all such amendments, as well as DOMA?
Because that’s not what they themselves say.
Here’s a more relevant question: of the states where gay marriage is legal, how many are that way because the people voted, and how many are that way because gay rights activists did an end-run around the “consent of the governed”?
Has homosexual marriage been relying on making its case and persuading people, or has it been relying on finding ways around the inconvenient fact that some voters are not inclined to vote for gay marriage?
June 22nd, 2012 | 7:00 am
“Whatever the merits of the argument for same-sex marriage (and I think they are meager indeed, resulting from a simple misunderstanding of what marriage is and how necessary it is for living a good and full life), its advocates don’t think they can be appreciated at a popular level”
This feels like a cheap shot. Every argument from a minority position asks the state and the populace to restrain majority rule and majority preferences. In the meantime, in other columns, Schmitz wants protection from a democratic majority who like contraception and contraception coverage.
“An elite consensus is not a popular consensus, though it can become one.”
This whole idea that some elite wants this is inaccurate and sloppy. Who is this elite? There are several elites in this country, and they’re hardly uniform.
“Whatever the merits of the argument for same-sex marriage (and I think they are meager indeed”
There is this final merit that can’t be gainsaid. I have several friends who attend church with me every Sunday. They have been together for 10, 15, even 25 and 30 years. They have supported each other through good times and bad. Some of them have raised children. We have had long and probing conversations about the challenges and soul-building of child rearing, of fidelity, of living a Christian life.
I would call these couples both married and Christian. You can marshal all kinds of elegant proofs from natural law, church history, the Bible, and social science, but these simple facts remain.
The arguments against gay marriage grow increasingly desperate and far-fetched.
June 22nd, 2012 | 10:00 am
The fight has everything to do with legitimizing undemocratic strategies and bureaucratic overreach. It has everything to do with muddling the legal definition of human rights to extend beyond negative liberties and empower the state.
June 22nd, 2012 | 10:09 am
Michael writes: “The arguments against gay marriage grow increasingly desperate and far-fetched.”
Here is the argument in a nutshell. It’s all about banning gay marriage, not about changing marriage to include SSM. So no need to persuade. The important people, like Michael, have already been persuaded. The challenge is to all those others who must prove Michael and those who agree with him wrong or stand out of the way.
I don’t think democracy works that way. And certainly marriage in this country has never been about who was “banned” from it but rather who met the requirements, ability to bear children being part of it. That is what is changed with SSM. A difficulty with it is that the former limits disappear and the new proposed limits are incoherent in the face of the arguments made for the change. “Marriage” collapses into nothing more than a group of government benefits. One might argue that it is also a license to have sex but any rationale for that disappeared with the social changes of the last forty years.
If you want to change things, persuade others. If you are unable to do so, reexamine your premises. Start here where you will get a hearing and will have to work to persuade.
June 22nd, 2012 | 10:10 am
The argument here is that the executive branch offices responsible for defending the law are choosing to argue that the law is unconstitutional.
Mike Melendez,
My remarks were directed primarily against this:
June 22nd, 2012 | 10:33 am
And certainly marriage in this country has never been about who was “banned” from it but rather who met the requirements, ability to bear children being part of it.
The ability to bear children has never been either a legal or a religious (Judeo-Christian) requirement for marriage. The inability to bear children is also not grounds for an annulment, either legally or in the Catholic Church. Legally, a couple’s intention to never have children is not an impediment to marriage or cause for annulment. Let’s not go through this whole argument again.
June 22nd, 2012 | 11:09 am
David, one difference between Obamacare and state marriage amendments is that Obamacare is a federal law, not a state law or constitutional provision. As you know, the limits on the federal government are far greater than those on the states. Second, the state marriage amendments were all approved by a direct vote of the public, and they therefore carry a democratic legitimacy that Obamacare can never have, both because it was passed by a legislature rather than a direct vote and because as far as anyone can tell, it has always been pretty unpopular. This does not mean that every law has to be voted on directly, but it does mean that those of us who believe in normal marriage are especially annoyed when vote after vote of the public is ignored by hard-left judges.
In this way, it is similar to the abortion debate: as you may know, in the Nov. 1972 election two states voted overwhelming to retain abortion bans (ND and MI). Of course, in Jan. 1973 the court told those benighted masses to change their minds. Forty years later, we see how well that has worked out to solve the dispute. If the courts buy what the lefty lawyers are selling, we will be treated to something similar in this country over the issue of marriage.
The broader point is the progressive disdain for procedure: the ordinary tools of legislation are too cumbersome to fix such injustices (injustices that progressives started to notice about 10 years ago). The means by which the end is achieved is not important: the goal must be reached, whatever the social cost. That is not the way consensus is built nor the way social cohesion is maintained.
June 22nd, 2012 | 11:51 am
Mike P.,
As you might suspect, I disagree. Something passed by referendum is no more democratic or legitimate than something passed by a legislature. We have the technology available today to let every voter vote on every question (through the Internet, for example). The United States is not a direct democracy. It’s a constitutional, representative democracy with some elements of direct democracy. The Framers were extremely wary of direct democracy or of concentrating power in any one branch of government.
Important questions are decided by the courts all the time. That is our system of government. Brown v. Board of Education did not leave the issue of segregation in the public schools to local and state governments. I think there are few today who would argue that it was wrongly decided. I do see the movement for same-sex marriage as similar to (though not identical to or exactly analogous to) other civil rights struggles. Even Matthew Schmitz says, “[I]f one thinks same-sex marriage is a human right, then it should not be subject to popular will.” I am not committing here to calling same-sex marriage a human right (although I am not committing to saying it is not), but it seems to me it is not a question that should be entirely decided by popular vote with no raising of constitutional questions or human or civil rights questions.
It seems to me that ultimately, the court system in the United States is conservative in several meanings of the term. Same-sex marriage questions, if they go all the way to the Supreme Court, are not going to be decided on the basis of passing fads or the whims of the “elite.”
By the way, when did elite become a dirty word in America? Weren’t the Founding Fathers and the Framers elite groups? I am currently reading Guns, Germs, and Steel, and it’s very clear that we would not have civilization if the development of food production had not allowed for increased population, increased concentration of population, specialization, and the development of “elites” to organize and administer complex societies. Hunter-gatherers in many ways had very appealing lives, but in their ideal environments, they didn’t develop agriculture, writing, government, or any religion to speak of. You can’t have civilization without elites.
June 22nd, 2012 | 4:45 pm
Mike,
“It’s all about banning gay marriage, not about changing marriage to include SSM.”
Rights are recognized, not made. Gay couples are already living like married couples, and so the question is whether society is going to recognize that the couple already *is* married.
“So no need to persuade. The important people, like Michael, have already been persuaded.”
But people are being persuaded, more and more every day. The more people know, the more they support gay marriage.
“The challenge is to all those others who must prove Michael and those who agree with him wrong or stand out of the way. I don’t think democracy works that way.”
You said that. I didn’t. I’m saying that I don’t find your arguments convincing nor does an increasing number of people. I’d prefer to see a legislative victory over a judicial one, mostly because conservatives whine so much about judicial activism except when they’re using it. But I wouldn’t claim that the judiciary is un-democratic. The judiciary is part of our democratic system, and one of its functions is to recognize minority rights when the majority is unwilling to.
“the new proposed limits are incoherent”
It’s that kind of argument that shows why anti-gay marriage forces are losing. We talk about justice, and you talk about coherence. Most people choose justice.
“Marriage” collapses into nothing more than a group of government benefits. One might argue that it is also a license to have sex but any rationale for that disappeared with the social changes of the last forty years”
Government benefits and privileges like those routinely offered to spouses around health care, visitation rights, finances, insurance, housing, and decision-making abilities only become “nothing more than a group of benefits” when you have them. By failing to recognize that you are looking at a couple every bit as married as you are, you are withholding something from them that they own by right.
“If you want to change things, persuade others.”
We have. Gay marriage went from unthinkable to succeeding in a matter of years.
“Start here where you will get a hearing and will have to work to persuade”
Ok. Then answer this: what’s the best argument you’ve heard for gay marriage?
June 22nd, 2012 | 4:49 pm
not going to be decided on the basis of passing fads or the whims of the “elite.”
You better tell that to left wing activists.
They think they do have the power to impose their “correct” values on the majority (whom they hold in open contempt).
They talk of tactics openly on web pages. They say that because the Religious Right uses things like “wedge strategies” and other “dirty tricks”, that therefore they are within their right to do the same.
I used to go around arguing with these people that it would be better to persuade, rather than bully. They would get angry with me: “civil rights shouldn’t be put to a vote”, they’d snarl.
They honestly believe that if they decide something is or ought to be a “civil right”, that a vote shouldn’t be necessary. Their word for it is enough.
And they do use the word “elite” to describe themselves. (This being directly related to holding the majority in contempt).
June 22nd, 2012 | 4:58 pm
David,
You are mistaken again.
The Catholic Church used to require that the couple, male and female, be able to have children before marriage in the church was allowed. It was so when I married. I do not know what has followed.
On the civil side, you make the mistake of arguing from emptiness. Indeed, many of the arguments “in favor” of SSM are of that nature. What is understood by society at large is simply not written into law, there being no need to do so. But emptiness works both ways. Why is it that SSM was never mentioned in the statues and yet SSM just never happened? If you fall back on the bigotry of the vast majority of citizens, you demonstrate a lack of willingness to persuade.
Simply put, there is no argument to revisit, let alone to serve as the basis of a putdown. Except, of course, to avoid discussion. Persuade, man, don’t claim.
As to arguments about elites, you wouldn’t happen to one of the 1% would you? Elites lead. Elites persuade. They take on responsibility to the point of self-sacrifice. The worst of elites are self-chosen and take authority from others, mainly for the benefit of themselves and their friends. So, which kind are we talking about here? Are you claiming that Diamond was in favor of the Robber Barons?
June 22nd, 2012 | 5:06 pm
And certainly marriage in this country has never been about who was “banned” from it but rather who met the requirements, ability to bear children being part of it.
The ability to bear children has never been either a legal or a religious (Judeo-Christian) requirement for marriage. The inability to bear children is also not grounds for an annulment, either legally or in the Catholic Church. Legally, a couple’s intention to never have children is not an impediment to marriage or cause for annulment. Let’s not go through this whole argument again.
This counterargument of yours has already been adequately addressed. If you don’t want to go through “this whole argument” again, then please provide a better quality of rebuttal to the following arguments:
ARGUMENT #1:
There is a difference between discriminating against a processvs. discriminating against an individual.
There is no way to test for infertility without creating a class of persons who are barred from marriage.
This would be unconstitutional.
But we are not creating a class of individuals who are not allowed to marry, when we do not accept gay marriages as equal to marriages. Those gays are still welcome to marry. What we are discriminating against is one process of family-making – and it’s okay to discriminate against that process, because it’s demonstrably inferior: it is in direct conflict with the child’s rights, and it is in direct conflict with the procreative and family-security functions of marriage.
There is a difference between marking out someone as a person who cannot marry, regardless of how or why one attempts to go about being married, vs. marking out particular processes of how to marry as inappropriate and unsuitable for government support.
ARGUMENT TWO
If marriage “isn’t procreative”, then what is so threatening about expecting gay men and lesbian women to raise their children openly with the child’s real other parent?
If marriage “isn’t procreative”, why do gays and lesbians feel so strongly the need to prove that gays and lesbians are entitled to be viewed as procreative units – even to the point where it gives them the right to deprive their child of a father or mother relationship, and it gives them the right to force their child into lies, denial, and taboo?
ARGUMENT THREE:
As I’ve pointed out before (and if you’ve offered an effective rebuttal, I don’t remember seeing it), your argument confuses two statements which are inverse, not identical:
“They are entitled for benefits, but they do not plan on using them”
“They are planning on using benefits, but they are not entitled to them”
If gays were willing to accept that their union is non-procreative and is therefore to be barren, they might be in a position to compare themselves to infertile couples.
But where infertile couples respect that their infertility does not grant them the right to commit adultery, gays are quite open about their intention to use adulterous means of gaining a child – I refer you again to the Miller custody case, where a lesbian woman is arguing that her “right” to be presumed the other parent of her partner’s child gives her parental rights even though it’s not in the child’s best interests – gay rights advocates, unlike infertile couples, argue that their “situation” grants them a special right to prioritize their own interests even when it is at the expense of the child’s best interest.
June 23rd, 2012 | 4:18 pm
You are mistaken again.
The Catholic Church used to require that the couple, male and female, be able to have children before marriage in the church was allowed. It was so when I married. I do not know what has followed.
Mike Melendez,
No, sorry, you are mistaken. Here are the pertinent parts of the Code of Canon Law from both the code of 1917 and then the new code promulgated in 1983.
It is simply not true that the Church required men and women to be fertile to enter into marriage. If one party knew himself or herself to be sterile and deliberately deceived the other party, that was grounds for an annulment. A man who was known for a fact to be permanently impotent could not marry, since Catholic marriages are not complete until consummated. But couples who were capable of having intercourse but incapable of conceiving children (say, because the woman was past childbearing age) were not ineligible to marry, and infertility (unless known and lied about) was never grounds for divorce.
I think you have an obligation, as a Catholic discussing Catholic teaching in a forum like this, to be sure what you are saying about Catholicism is factual. You are wrong, and if you claim not to be, you should provide some evidence that what you say is true.
June 23rd, 2012 | 8:31 pm
Blake,
Argument #1 falls apart right here:
“What we are discriminating against is one process of family-making – and it’s okay to discriminate against that process, because it’s demonstrably inferior”
Gays do not follow ONE process of family making. They follow one of THREE: (1) They have a child, divorce, and remarry. (2) They adopt. (3) They use a surrogate.
Many straight families are made in exactly the same ways.
Argument #2 falls apart because it is based on blanket generalizations. Some gays behave the way you describe, but others do not. Some straights behave in the same ways, but you don’t argue against straight marriage.
Argument #3 ignores the bigger picture. Which of the following benefits enjoyed by straight married couples do you believe that gay married couples don’t need: health care, hospital visitation rights, shared finances, shared insurance, housing, and decision-making abilities?
You go over the top in this comment: “But where infertile couples respect that their infertility does not grant them the right to commit adultery, gays are quite open about their intention to use adulterous means of gaining a child”
If by “adulterous means,” you mean surrogacy, then your blanket generalizations have gotten you in trouble again. Plenty of infertile couples are “open about their intention to use adulterous means.”
And there are surely cases very like the Miller case if you take out the gay wrinkle. If a man divorced a woman who had used a sperm donor to conceive the child they raised, would you say that the man had no visitation rights?
June 24th, 2012 | 10:55 pm
But people are being persuaded, more and more every day. The more people know, the more they support gay marriage.
Actually, that’s not true.
I used to be staunchly in favor of gay marriage. Ditto other members of my family and “circle”.
The problem here is that you are assuming that animosity toward gays is the reason why people oppose gay marriage. That is one reason, but it is not the only or even the primary reason.
So yes, I’m sure it is true that gays benefit from people seeing positive media (over)representations on TV.
But what is only just now starting to come out is the truth about “kids are all right” myth. It turns out there are a lot of untrue statements being used to persuade people that “the kids are all right”. Deliberately distorted images and facts and studies. Gross misrepresentations. Kids who are upset about the way they’ve been treated – but whose voices are being deliberately silenced.
Ultimately the problem with the gay “civil rights” analogy is that they will eventually be judged by their own standards. The right to not live a lie? The right to not be deprived of important things, experiences, relationships? The right to not be singled out for different treatment and different legal protections under the law? Gay rights relies on the argument that their rights are somehow more precious than their kids’ rights – hence the need for films like “The Kids Are All Right”.
When people figure out that it’s all lies, there will be backlash. I think it will look more like the abortion rights debate than the interracial marriage debate: people are all in favor of “rights” – especially sexual rights – until they find out that it means hurting little kids.
June 26th, 2012 | 12:20 am
Blake,
I don’t think you and your family constitute a convincing sample size. Every national poll shows increasing support.
I noticed that you didn’t address any of my counter arguments.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact