Louisiana won't Recognize Same-Sex Marriages


Recommended Posts

In Granbury, TX (about 2 hours south of Dallas/Ft Worth) a county clerk refused to give out same sex marriage licenses... because its... wait for it.... wait for it.... against her relgious beliefs !

Her boss has said she has his full support, but now they are being sued by the couple who was trying to get married.

Now, the office is claiming, there is someone who will do it in their office, but it will take 3 weeks to get the forms....

[uPDATE ] 2 HOURS AGO

http://keranews.org/post/after-suing-hood-county-granbury-gay-couple-gets-marriage-license

They got their license.  Welcome to 2015 Granbury :rolleyes:

 

Edit: Stupid me pressing the submit button before entirely writing the post ...

 

I believe homosexuality is a sinful life style. I do not support gay rights or marriage. Neither do I actively work or speak against them.

 

That is some premium top of the shelf cognitive dissonance there. How is it possible to align these two sentences???
 

In Granbury, TX (about 2 hours south of Dallas/Ft Worth) a county clerk refused to give out same sex marriage licenses... because its... wait for it.... wait for it.... against her relgious beliefs !

Her boss has said she has his full support, but now they are being sued by the couple who was trying to get married.

Now, the office is claiming, there is someone who will do it in their office, but it will take 3 weeks to get the forms....

[uPDATE ] 2 HOURS AGO

http://keranews.org/post/after-suing-hood-county-granbury-gay-couple-gets-marriage-license

They got their license.  Welcome to 2015 Granbury :rolleyes:

 
Where did I said that? Oh, Yes! Post 362 on page 25

 

Also, I was wondering what would Jindal have done if he was not in the presidential race. The more I see it, it was a publicity stunt to try to appeal to the GOP base and try to have something slightly the 0% of votes he is currently credited ...

 

To finish, some extracts from http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/07/05/the-new-post-homophobic-christianity.html

 


The Episcopalian Church embraced gay marriage last week. Earlier this year, the Presbyterian Church (USA) affirmed its support for marriage equality, joining many other major Christian denominations that officially endorse LGBT rights. And according to an April 2015 poll, majorities of congregants within many Christian faith traditions support marriage equality

In God we trust is written on every 1 dollar bill, no? What God do you think they are referring to?  Vishnu? Maybe Thor?

 

It was initially to drum up patriotism when the cold war against the soviets.  You are correct in the question though of "which god?" I guess since it didn't clarify Yahweh, it can literally mean any god you wish.

And if you legislate from the bench, establishing new laws out of thin air purely through mandate, thereby stripping states of their rights, then you are going against many areas of our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

 

Last time I checked, anything not specifically listed in the Constitution or its Amendments is supposed to be handled by the States and given credit by Full Faith and Credit. Don't hear me wrong, I'm not saying that there are grounds to fight back against SSM, but that should have been done through the Full Faith and Credit clause, with respect to the rights of the States.

 

I'm just waiting now for the first openly LGBT person who applies for a job at a religiously affiliated institution file a discrimination lawsuit when they don't get hired. Poop, meet fan.

 

Funny, I didn't know that SCOTUS clarifying law and determining Constitutionality was "legislating from the bench"...

 

What they did was their job.  If there is a question about constitutionality or legality of a law, it the job of the SCOTUS to clarify and adjust.  They do not write law, that is the job of the Legislative Branch.  They do not enforce law, that is the job of the Executive Branch.

 

We do have a reason for the 10th.  However, and this is what most tenthers tend to forget, there are laws and events that have sprouted up since the writing of our Constitution that must be Federally mandated because the conditions and repercussions cross state lines, as just one example of many reasons why.  The heart of this case is a couple that were married in state that allows for SSM, then went back home to a state that doesn't.  SCOTUS ruled that their marriage, for several reasons, should be fully recognized in their home state.  Having a patchwork of laws in this case doesn't make sense and can been seen as discriminatory.  

 

 

T

No, you are wrong. Northern Ireland is part of the UK and has NOT legalised same-sex marriage. Marriages from other parts of the UK are treated as civil partnerships, not marriages.

 

The UK still does not have marriage equality.

 

Most of us in the mainland of UK don't really tend to think of NI as part of us, due to them having separate laws so whilst technically you may be correct, when it comes down to reality, you're not.

In 1954 President Eisenhower encouraged Congress to add the words "under God," creating the 31-word pledge.

 

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

 

So, while originally it was not planned like that, it absolutely have being like that for last 60 years.

 

In God we trust is written on every 1 dollar bill, no? What God do you think they are referring to?  Vishnu? Maybe Thor?

 

Those were added long after our Founding Fathers passed away...

 

IGWT, was added during the Civil War as almost a rallying cry to show that "god" was on the side of the Union.

 

For the Pledge, it wasn't officially added until 1954 - over 60 years after it was initially written and was the brainchild of a pastor.

 

Again, while people want to cry out we are a "christian nation", it was actually the christians time and time again forcing their beliefs upon Americans.

 

 

T

Definitely donating my money towards the plaintiffs of the law suits that this generates in order to fight the continued discrimination against homosexuals.

 

This discrimination has gone on long enough. Obama should send the Feds in to make sure that the law is followed. Civil servants that want to continue their hatred of others can do that from home and off of the tax payer's payrolls.

Funny, I didn't know that SCOTUS clarifying law and determining Constitutionality was "legislating from the bench"...

Also courts make laws all the time, Its called case law.

 

Both sides are guilty of it, the supreme court decision was on a case that wasn't really about same sex marriage at all (imo a scapegoat to push the agenda onto the remaining states).

The new world order agenda :rofl:

 

What qualifies as "imposing"? Both parties are guilty of pushing their ideals on others

I don't see anybody trying to make gay marriage mandatory, Just demanding that they not be discriminated in the same way the rest of society does.

 

The SCOTUS ruling has put a lot of the religious community on edge in a way they weren't expecting nor should they be necessarily okay with.

And yet they have not lost a single right they had before.

 

As far as I'm concerned, we should have left it to legislation and voting. There'd be a lot less controversy over something the majority decided, rather than something decided by a small group. Ireland should serve as an example here.

A lot of use it will be to these people when they are in their graves http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/meet-jim-obergefell-man-supreme-court-sex-marriage/story?id=30621574 by the time that would happen.

I don't see anybody trying to make gay marriage mandatory, Just demanding that they not be discriminated in the same way the rest of society does.

 

A lot of use it will be to these people when they are in their graves http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/meet-jim-obergefell-man-supreme-court-sex-marriage/story?id=30621574 by the time that would happen.

 

It's not necessarily about making it mandatory. And to say that "people will be in their graves by the time it would happen" is quite the assumption. This civil rights issue was probably the fastest one in US history compared to racial equality and women's rights. I personally don't think a decade and a half is "slow", we had a majority of US states already agreeing to it in that time (many of which overturned their previous legal definitions in under 10 years).

 

 

The heart of this case is a couple that were married in state that allows for SSM, then went back home to a state that doesn't. SCOTUS ruled that their marriage, for several reasons, should be fully recognized in their home state.  Having a patchwork of laws in this case doesn't make sense and can been seen as discriminatory.

 

First, to highlight this particular part. Why did this couple not do their due diligence with this topic? Why is this the state's fault in the first place. Aside from the fact that the arguments provided by the state were complete crap (they should have mentioned that the situation was entirely preventable by the married couple if they'd actually done their homework). Yes, it sucks that it happened. But there are many legal avenues to grant the rights they were prevented from that marriage provides. This is again why I see this case as a scapegoat to do something unrelated. It wasn't about legalizing same sex marriage (the original case anyways).

 

But what did this case inevitably end up doing? Rather than solving this particular issue we have a landmark decision which effectively forces states to issue the licenses. It's not even about recognition anymore, but requiring them to be given out as well. A completely separate issue entirely. This is one of the things that annoys me about this ruling and makes me feel like it forced and issue that didn't need forcing to a group of people who shouldn't have made the decision. It should have been punted back to the state level courts, or ruled in a more specific manner (ie. something legislation could work out).

 

I don't care if one side is morally or ethically more sound, you cannot ignore the fact that this was an odd way to achieve a goal that was not part of the problem in the original case (and was also completely avoidable).

 

That being said, I certainly hope the result of this is to erase the word "marriage" from the state's power. We need to just officially rename legal marriage as a civil union across the board and be done with the terminology nonsense. That way the religious groups have no say in the matter. It's merely a legal contract to share assets in the eyes of the state / federal government.

It's not necessarily about making it mandatory. And to say that "people will be in their graves by the time it would happen" is quite the assumption. This civil rights issue was probably the fastest one in US history compared to racial equality and women's rights. I personally don't think a decade and a half is "slow", we had a majority of US states already agreeing to it in that time (many of which overturned their previous legal definitions in under 10 years).

 

 

 

First, to highlight this particular part. Why did this couple not do their due diligence with this topic? Why is this the state's fault in the first place. Aside from the fact that the arguments provided by the state were complete crap (they should have mentioned that the situation was entirely preventable by the married couple if they'd actually done their homework). Yes, it sucks that it happened. But there are many legal avenues to grant the rights they were prevented from that marriage provides. This is again why I see this case as a scapegoat to do something unrelated. It wasn't about legalizing same sex marriage (the original case anyways).

 

But what did this case inevitably end up doing? Rather than solving this particular issue we have a landmark decision which effectively forces states to issue the licenses. It's not even about recognition anymore, but requiring them to be given out as well. A completely separate issue entirely. This is one of the things that annoys me about this ruling and makes me feel like it forced and issue that didn't need forcing to a group of people who shouldn't have made the decision. It should have been punted back to the state level courts, or ruled in a more specific manner (ie. something legislation could work out).

 

I don't care if one side is morally or ethically more sound, you cannot ignore the fact that this was an odd way to achieve a goal that was not part of the problem in the original case (and was also completely avoidable).

 

That being said, I certainly hope the result of this is to erase the word "marriage" from the state's power. We need to just officially rename legal marriage as a civil union across the board and be done with the terminology nonsense. That way the religious groups have no say in the matter. It's merely a legal contract to share assets in the eyes of the state / federal government.

 

Clearly the states couldn't handle it themselves, that's why the SCOTUS did it in the end.

You had some backward states that where trying to inject religion in their law making and that is still illegal/wrong!

But what did this case inevitably end up doing? Rather than solving this particular issue we have a landmark decision which effectively forces states to issue the licenses. It's not even about recognition anymore, but requiring them to be given out as well. A completely separate issue entirely. This is one of the things that annoys me about this ruling and makes me feel like it forced and issue that didn't need forcing to a group of people who shouldn't have made the decision. It should have been punted back to the state level courts, or ruled in a more specific manner (ie. something legislation could work out).

 

There is no way to reconcile laws prohibiting same sex marriage with the US Constitution as it is currently written. Exactly the same way there was no way to reconcile laws prohibiting interracial marriage with the Constitution as written. The courts ruled the only way they could have.

There is no way to reconcile laws prohibiting same sex marriage with the US Constitution as it is currently written. Exactly the same way there was no way to reconcile laws prohibiting interracial marriage with the Constitution as written. The courts ruled the only way they could have.

 

If you read the resulting ruling, the court found them unconstitutional because the laws only applied to whites. Interracial was actually whites marrying whites only. It would be akin banning same sex marriage but only between men. A bit different than this case (by a bit, I mean a lot).

It's funny what you call bullying other people call fighting for equal rights

Depends what side of the fence you are on.

Equal rights has nothing to do with it.

I said I was for same sex marriage.

 

There are few places on the internet where you could get away with bashing one's religion and get away with it.

If I said the same kinds of things you have said - but instead against gays, Jews, women - I would have been kicked off.

Lots of little hate boys here.

If you read the resulting ruling, the court found them unconstitutional because the laws only applied to whites. Interracial was actually whites marrying whites only. It would be akin banning same sex marriage but only between men. A bit different than this case (by a bit, I mean a lot).

 

Not at all. Equal protection means equal. There is (nearly) no way you can craft a law prohibiting an activity of just one group of adults while allowing the same activity for others and have it not violate the equal protection clause. (There are exceptions, none apply here)

 

To claim it's akin to banning SSM but only for men is absurd, since there is no legal distinction between same sex marriage and opposite sex marriage.  If a law was written to create a legal distinction, it would violate the equal protection clause. The same way if a law is written to ban same sex marriage, it violates the equal protection clause. There's no simple way around this, it's pretty straightforward.

There are few places on the internet where you could get away with bashing one's religion and get away with it.

If I said the same kinds of things you have said - but instead against gays, Jews, women - I would have been kicked off.

Lots of little hate boys here.

 

If you see this discussion as "bashing one's religion", then you obviously have the entire discussion wrong.

 

It wouldn't of mattered if it was christianity, islam, judaism, shinto, buddhism, or pastafarian -- if you use religion as a sword to make or enforce laws in America you are doing Freedom wrong!

 

The specific religion doesn't matter, it just happens that the one shoving its beliefs down everyone's throat this time is christianity.

 

 

T

  • Like 2

Equal rights has nothing to do with it.

I said I was for same sex marriage.

 

There are few places on the internet where you could get away with bashing one's religion and get away with it.

If I said the same kinds of things you have said - but instead against gays, Jews, women - I would have been kicked off.

Lots of little hate boys here.

 

This whole thread is about equal rights.

If people oppose those then they can expect some backlash

 

I don't know about you, but I run in enough hatred against gays/muslims/jews/.... just by reading replies on articles that pop up on FB.

So I don't think it's just directed at Christians.

I just found someone mudslag would agree with.

 

 

"hates Christianity, because it has crippled all that is noble in humanity."

 

...and since you decided to epic fail the entire thread by going Nazi...

 

23fa9f5bec59537f49018d85f96446d9.jpg

 

...sigh...

 

 

T

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • I notice how you dodged the questions I had about the racism shown by ignorant, gullible, cowardly people when the Poles, like your partner, were the immigrants. Ahem. I wonder how you'd feel if native born Brits suddenly treated you as "dirty crooked immigrant" for being half Trump-American? If they ordered you to leave and "go back to your corrupt country" (on the other side of the Atlantic), would you go? The truth is based on facts as supported by evidence. As requested in your previous posts, I have used the facts in your own post to show everyone the truth.
    • US citizens are paying to their government, who could use that to fund healthcare and tuition and relieve the costs of these for citizens instead of making tax breaks that overwhelmingly favor the rich. I'm not saying that tariffs are the correct solution, but what else would they be used for? What else could Trump have in mind for wanting them, if he hasn't figured out that labor costs are higher in the US?
    • I’m in need of a new chair and it sounds like the backrest cannot be locked? I also sat on a Herman miller and was devastated that it couldn’t be locked also, what is going on with chairs. I want to be able to lock the backrest into any position but not even the Herman’s do that
    • Sihoo Doro C300 Pro V2 Ergonomic Office Chair review: The Ikea of chairs by Steven Parker I've reviewed a few gaming chairs over the past three years or so and generally found them to score well in our reviews. SIHOO reached out asking if I was interested in taking a look at their flagship chair, the Doro C300 Pro V2. I never got the chance to check out its predecessor, but the V2 is described as an "Adaptive Ergonomic Chair." It became available to buy in April of this year. Let's get things rolling with a closer look at the specifications and features. Specifications Doro C300 Pro V2 Model Ergonomic Materials Mesh Back and Seat; Soft PU Coated Armrests Height adjustability 45.5 - 53 cm / 17.5" - 20.9" Seat (w+d) 52 x 43 - 47 cm / 20.5" x 16.9" - 18.5" (adjustable) Backrest 52 – 60 cm / 20.5" - 23.6" (adjustable) Lumbar support Mesh built-in (adjustable) Armrest adjustability 8D Bionic Armrests Rocking angle 105°, 120°, 135° (fixed) Neck support Mesh built-in (adjustable) Net weight 27.3 kg / 59.64 lbs Weight support 150 kg / 330 lbs Colors Black, White Warranty 5 years (upon registering) Price $499.99, $539.99 Introduction At first glance, it looks like a chair that in another life wants to be a Herman Miller; It certainly looks like my Aeron Remastered, but the Doro C300 Pro V2 has quite a few more features and costs quite a bit less. SIHOO says that it is made up of a "DynaCore" system that tracks your movement and synchronizes the headrest, backrest, lumbar support, and armrests as you shift, twist, or recline. They also say that the "SyncroFlex Backrest" molds to your spine, which kind of describes how the mesh fabric works in most ergonomic chairs, but anyway. Below are the meat and potatoes measurements for the chair. Here is the same tech sheet, but in inches. Durability I would be remiss to not talk about the various durability testing this chair underwent before coming to market, as this is claimed on the product page. First of all, the chair is BIFMA-, SGS-, and TÜV-certified. As for durability, the tests undergone were: 100,000 Castor cycles tested 120,000 Armrest cycles tested 120,000 Recline cycles tested 120,000 Gas lift cycles tested 60,000 Armrest durability cycles tested 120,000 Rotation cycles tested Nothing about weights testing, though. Now that's all disclosed, now onto my own personal findings. Assembly The Doro C300 Pro V2 came in two large boxes (1) (2), and everything was packed very well, protecting the different parts of the chair. In the box, there is a folded sheet that explains the 12 steps to assemble it; they are: Remove the bottom cover on the aluminum base; Insert the five legs into the aluminum base and use ten screws to fasten them; Insert the castors into the legs; Replace the bottom cover on the bottom of the aluminum base; Place the Class 4 Hydraulics gas cylinder into the aluminum base; Screw the bottom part of the arm rests, taking care of the orientation using two screws on each side; Use three torx screws to fasten the footrest to the bottom of the seat; Fasten the backrest to the seat using four torx bolts; Fasten the armrests to the backrest using four Torx bolts (two on each side), taking care to note the orientation; Place the chair onto the Class 4 Hydraulics gas cylinder; Insert the headrest into the top of the backrest; Use two torx screws to fasten the headrest to the backrest. There's also an online guide you can refer to. Carefully unpacking the two boxes took around 15 minutes because almost everything is wrapped in plastic and protective foam; the chair assembly itself took around an hour. I say in the above assembly steps to take note of the orientation, because it's not obvious which way around the bottom portion of the armrests go, and although there is an L and R on the bottom of the armrests, it also wasn't clear from the instructions which was actually left or right, facing the chair, or in the seated down orientation? Anyway, I ended up putting the bottom portions on the wrong sides, and after securing one of the armrests, I discovered that although it was on the correct side, the armrest base could rotate a full 360°, but not when bolted to the chair, so I had to remove it, rotate it, and then bolt it back on. Truly an Ikea experience! Also, to complicate things further, although all the parts are labeled from A to X (yes, that's 24 parts) unhelpfully, these letters do not appear on the parts themselves or the package with the bolts, screws, and washers. There's also a pair of protective gloves in the box, but I think they were made for much smaller hands than I have. Even my friend, who is 5.1, had difficulty putting them on. Once assembled, I needed to sit down. Anyway, as I said, it looks quite similar to my Herman Miller. And here is the back of it. If you look at the product page and on Amazon, it seems like a lot of thought has gone into the chair itself and what it's capable of, but there is no mention at all about the castors, and this is an area where I think the chair trips up quite quickly. I found it difficult to move the chair in any direction. I asked a friend who came to visit me earlier this week to test my findings, and she said that the wheels were "no good," so it definitely isn't just me. I am 6'2 myself and a big guy, I work from home and gained a few pounds from mostly staying in and the hell away from other people. However, the Doro C300 Pro V2 is rated for up to 150kg (330lbs), which in my case is used well within its max rating. Ergonomics The number of adjustments you can make, right up to setting it in nap mode — which I haven't fully tested yet — is what you'd expect from a premium chair. Yes, you can go up and down (max 7.5 cm adjustment), rock back and forth (with tilt adjustment), and lock the chair between three stages of 105°, 120°, 135°, which is not quite as flat as the AndaSeat I tested at 160°. Some thought has also gone into the "8D" armrests, too, which are cushioned but quite firm; you'll only know it if you press hard into the PU-covered tops, which give about half a centimeter, but it's enough to ensure your skin won't get awkwardly stuck to it in warmer (or sweatier) conditions. It almost feels like plastic and is very easy to keep clean. However, the armrest positions move far too easily, and I am not sure what that "elbow" function is. Maybe it is good for a short person with short arms, anyway, I never used it and kept it flat at all times. There are eight levels of adjustment for the armrests, they are: backwards, forwards, swing left/right, height up and down, tilt, and 360° rotation, which can be handy for desk clearance. As I said, the armrest pads shift far too easily, which could give off an ergonomic vibe, but who wants the armrest sliding when you are shifting weight? The height adjustability does lock into place when lifting and adjusting. Comfort This is ultimately what it boils down to at the end of the day, right? Quite a lot of reviews praise the comfort of this chair, and I don't disagree that the mesh seating is quite comfortable. I am used to the material from my daily Herman Miller. However, the backrest cannot be locked into place, and this is actually a feature; as you shift or recline yourself on the chair, the backrest moves with your body. It took some getting used to. The lumbar gives ample support, but I would have preferred an adjustable one built into the seat base, as this causes the backrest to move up and down at will. Again, as with my previous chair review, this chair is also rated for tall people, but nowhere in the product documentation does it say how tall. Being 6'2 myself, I'm happy to say that the backrest is tall and wide enough, and thought has been given to being able to adjust the neck rest, but as others have mentioned in their reviews, people as tall as 6.2ft is about the limit for the neckrest. Conclusion What I didn't like The footrest is rated for 15kg (33 lbs), which to me seems a bit light, and after looking online, it seems like a chair footrest for adults must be at least twice that rating. In all honesty, they are just hollow metal tubes, so it is not recommended to let a kid sit on them. I also feel like it doesn't really go out far enough for my height, so that kind of puts the dampener on me being able to use it regularly. I'll just have to continue to use my subwoofer as a footrest! I do not like the armrests being able to shift around as easily as they can, and they are a little too forward-positioned in the chair to comfortably sit close to my desk, because even in the lowest height position, they don't allow me to go under the desk like is possible with my Herman Miller. I also feel like this chair could have been delivered partially constructed, especially the armrests on the seat, and why the aluminum base wasn't already pre-constructed (without the castors) is baffling, considering it would have fit in one of the two boxes that way. The instructions also need to be clearer. On the pamphlet, there's an A to X listing (which is also used in the steps), but none of the physical parts use this lettering system! What I did like I'll be honest, I haven't used it for very long, just one week, and seating comfort is subjective after all! Any spills wiped straight off it, the stitching, and the lines look great, not a fray to be seen or stitch out of place. It looks kind of cool, too. My favorite feature of these seats is the nap mode. While you're not lying completely flat, it leans far back enough to make you easily doze off after a heavy gaming or working session. Overall, this chair offers plenty of comfort features. The MSRP does vary quite a bit depending on the region, at £549.99 in the UK, and €580 in Europe, and $599 before tax in the U.S. However, shipping is free, which is a bonus for such a heavy item. Is it worth it, though? At three years' warranty, I think it's a decent deal. Another firm out of Germany sent me a free replacement hydraulic gas spring for a chair that failed after almost four years, so it was well outside its two-year warranty. My advice is to always try, as you might have the same luck I did. If I could fault it at all, it would be the constant shifting of the armrests and backrest. Where to buy Although the footrest variant normally costs $539.99, it has been discounted to $469.99 on the official website in Black or White. In fact, the non-footrest variant is only $40 cheaper. On Amazon, it currently costs more at $499.99 links below. Sihoo Doro C300 Pro V2 for $469.99 (official website) Sihoo Doro C300 Pro V2 for $499.99 at Amazon US SIHOO provided a free sample without any review or pre-approval. Good to know This Amazon link is U.S. specific, and not available in other regions unless specified. We only use first-party seller links (at the time of article publishing); ensure that you purchase from a first-party seller link only. Check out Today's Deals on Amazon | or our recent tech deals. Become a Prime member (for Students or SNAP) via Neowin Get Prime Access - Prime for half price (for qualifying Medicaid, EBT, SNAP) Subscribe to Prime Video, Audible Plus, Music Unlimited or Kindle Unlimited via Neowin As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Conversation Starter
      jessse3334 earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • Reacting Well
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • One Month Later
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      506
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      207
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      151
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      73
    5. 5
      macoman
      62
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!