| Your opinion? |
| Good. |
|
39% |
[ 9 ] |
| Bad. |
|
60% |
[ 14 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 23 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
 Sat Aug 14, 2004 6:08 pm S.F. same-sex marriages voided |
|
| Quote: |
S.F. same-sex marriages voided
Mayor overstepped authority, California high court rules
SAN FRANCISCO, California (AP) -- The California Supreme Court on Thursday voided the nearly 4,000 same-sex marriages sanctioned in San Francisco this year and ruled unanimously that the mayor overstepped his authority by issuing licenses to gay and lesbian couples.
The court said the city illegally issued the certificates and performed the ceremonies, since state law defined marriage as a union between a man and woman.
The justices separately decided with a 5-2 vote to nullify the 3,995 marriages performed between February 12 and March 11, when the court halted the weddings. Their legality, Justice Joyce Kennard wrote, must wait until courts resolve the constitutionality of state laws that restrict marriages to opposite-sex couples.
The same-sex marriages had virtually no legal value, but powerful symbolic value. Their nullification by the high court dismayed Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon, the first same-sex couple to receive a marriage license in San Francisco.
"Del is 83 years old and I am 79," Lyon said. "After being together for more than 50 years, it is a terrible blow to have the rights and protections of marriage taken away from us. At our age, we do not have the luxury of time."
About a dozen gay and lesbian couples, some wearing wedding dresses and tuxedos, waited on the steps of the Supreme Court building, and some cried when the decision was read.
The court did not resolve whether the California Constitution would permit a same-sex marriage, ruling instead on the limits of authority regarding local government officials.
Anti-same-sex marriage groups hailed the ruling, saying Mayor Gavin Newsom acted prematurely.
"Instead of helping his cause, Mayor Newsom has set back the same-sex marriage agenda and laid the foundation for the pro-marriage movement to once and for all win this battle to preserve traditional marriage," said Mathew Staver, who represents Campaign for California Families in a lawsuit challenging the San Francisco marriages.
The justices agreed to resolve the legality of the San Francisco weddings after emergency petitions were filed by conservative interest groups and Attorney General Bill Lockyer.
"Ultimately, we believe when we deal with the issue of the constitutionality of same-sex marriage in California, Mayor Newsom's position will be vindicated at the end of the day," said Dennis Herrera, San Francisco's city attorney.
"There is nothing that any court decision or politician can do that will take that (wedding) moment away," Newsom said in a midday news conference. "I'm proud of those 4,000 couples."
San Francisco's same-sex weddings, which followed a landmark ruling by Massachusetts' top court allowing gay marriage -- prompted President Bush to push for changing the U.S. Constitution to ban same-sex marriage, an effort that has become campaign fodder this election year.
The California court sided with Lockyer's arguments, ruling that Newsom's actions would sanction local officials to legislate state law from city halls or county government centers.
When the justices agreed to hear the case, they said they would decide only whether Newsom overstepped his mayoral powers for now, but would entertain a constitutional challenge -- that gays should be treated the same as heterosexual couples under the California Constitution -- if such a lawsuit reached the court.
Gay and lesbian couples immediately filed lawsuits making that argument, as did Newsom. The now-consolidated cases are unlikely to reach the California Supreme Court for at least a year or more. California lawmakers have refused to take a position on the matter.
Newsom argued to the justices in May that the ability of same-sex couples to marry was a "fundamental right" that compelled him to act. Newsom authorized the marriages by citing the California Constitution's ban against discrimination, and claimed he was duty-bound to follow this higher authority rather than state laws banning gay marriage.
The Arizona-based Christian law firm Alliance Defense Fund, a plaintiff in one of two cases the justices decided Thursday, had told the justices that Newsom's "act of disobedience" could lead other local officials to sanction "polygamists."
Newsom's defiance of state law created huge lines at City Hall by gays and lesbians waiting to be married, and ignited a firestorm engulfing statehouses and ballot boxes nationwide.
Missouri voters this month endorsed a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage -- a move designed to prevent that state's judiciary from agreeing with the arguments Newsom is making in California.
A state constitutional challenge by gays in Massachusetts prompted that state's highest court to endorse the gay marriages that began there in May. A judge in Washington state this month also ruled in favor of gay marriage, pending a resolution from that state's top court.
Louisiana residents are to vote on the same issue September 18. Then Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Montana, Oklahoma, Oregon and Utah are to vote Nov. 2. Initiatives are pending in Michigan, North Dakota and Ohio.
Four states -- Alaska, Hawaii, Nebraska and Nevada -- already have similar amendments in their constitutions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/08/12/samesex.marriage.ap/index.html
|
|
|
|
gilbert3729
Commander
Joined: 01 Aug 2004
Posts: 390
Location: New England, USA
|
| Sat Aug 14, 2004 10:29 pm |
|
same sex marriage should be allowed. America gives the freedom of live, liberty, and the persuit of happiness. With that in mind, how can the courts outlaw same sex marriage?
-------signature-------
Soylent Green is people!!!
John Kerry...
Bringing complete sentences back to the White House.
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Sat Aug 14, 2004 10:38 pm |
|
| gilbert3729 wrote: | | same sex marriage should be allowed. America gives the freedom of live, liberty, and the persuit of happiness. With that in mind, how can the courts outlaw same sex marriage? |
All for that. But the mayor was sort of out of line, and the same-sex marriage cause should be pursued through the proper channels.
I have a question. If a same-sex couple went to a place where same-sex marriages were allowed, got married, and then went back to their home, would their marriage be valid?
|
|
|
gilbert3729
Commander
Joined: 01 Aug 2004
Posts: 390
Location: New England, USA
|
| Sat Aug 14, 2004 10:41 pm |
|
ya, a lot of people did that when it was allowed in Cambridge, MA
-------signature-------
Soylent Green is people!!!
John Kerry...
Bringing complete sentences back to the White House.
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Sat Aug 14, 2004 10:52 pm |
|
Baaaaad, I have no problem with same sex marriage. And it seems rather rude to the people who did get marry to tell them that all of their time, energy, and money was wasted, not to mention how happy they probably were. Seems rude to me to do that.
|
|
|
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
| Sat Aug 14, 2004 10:54 pm |
|
It seems rude to me that the mayor overstepped his authority and allowed this to happen in the first place. They knew it was against the law at the time. Too bad so sad. 
Last edited by Puck on Sat Aug 14, 2004 10:55 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
Jeff Miller
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 22 Nov 2001
Posts: 23947
Location: Mental Ward for the Mentaly Unstable 6th floor, Saint John's 1615 Delaware Longview Washington 98632
|
| Sat Aug 14, 2004 10:54 pm |
|
I think it was a bad move for them to void it by them doing this you have to know all the people who are against same sex marriages will claim this as a victory for them. This is no better than telling black people that they couldn't use white bathrooms before they got their rights.
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Sat Aug 14, 2004 10:55 pm |
|
| JanewayIsHott wrote: | | It seems rude to me that the mayor overstepped his authority and allowed this to happen in the first place. They know it's against the law at this time. Too bad so sad. |
It's not their fault that the mayor did what he did.
|
|
|
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
| Sat Aug 14, 2004 11:00 pm |
|
That doesn't change the fact they most likely knew he was breaking the law. I am ok with gay marriage, but this is just stupid. The mayor knew it was wrong, the people knew it was wrong, so they can just deal with it.
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Sat Aug 14, 2004 11:57 pm |
|
Well, they were probably overjoyed to have an opportunity to get married, and have the same rights as everyone else, for a change. Sounds like an opportunity anybody would've taken.
|
|
|
LightningBoy
Commodore
Joined: 09 Mar 2003
Posts: 1446
Location: Minnesota, U.S.A.
|
| Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:24 am |
|
About time someone takes a stand against this plague.
Everyone has the right to get married. That means ANYONE can choose to be legally wedded to someone of the OPPOSITE sex. THAT is the definition of MARRIAGE. When you start changing the meanings of institiutions that a society holds sacred, you're leading to the breakdown of that institution, and ultimately the breakdown of that society.
Civilization thrives on stability. Gay Marriage is unstable. Sweden is a perfect example; Gay Marriage was recently allowed over there, and already the institution has lost all meaning. That's a value of the people which has vanished, and their culture is disintegrating more and more each time they do something like that.
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:38 am |
|
| LightningBoy wrote: | About time someone takes a stand against this plague.
Everyone has the right to get married. That means ANYONE can choose to be legally wedded to someone of the OPPOSITE sex. THAT is the definition of MARRIAGE. When you start changing the meanings of institiutions that a society holds sacred, you're leading to the breakdown of that institution, and ultimately the breakdown of that society.
Civilization thrives on stability. Gay Marriage is unstable. Sweden is a perfect example; Gay Marriage was recently allowed over there, and already the institution has lost all meaning. That's a value of the people which has vanished, and their culture is disintegrating more and more each time they do something like that. |
C'mon, civilization has gone through more unsettling things than gay marriage. Up until a few hundred years ago, we thought that we were the centre of the solar system! Then Copernicus pointed out that we weren't, he got charged with heresy, and eventually everyone apologized and accepted the heliocentric theory.
Many institutions have changed, because change is necessary. Stability brings stagnancy, which brings destruction. Only through adversity, only through change, can humans evolve. Change may be good or bad, but it is still change.
Slavery was an institution. But we changed it by abolishing it, and civilization is still around.
Who is this society fellow and what is are they doing to help us anyway? Opinions change. Hundreds of years ago, science was heresy. But here we are, where science is accepted as fact most of the time. Civilization, so far, is okay, except for the fact that the entertainment industry has sold itself out to reality TV.
As our understanding of the universe evolves, so do our opinions on civilization, and on permissibility. We went through stages where public homosexuality was not allowed, where public sexuality at all was not allowed, to a permissible stage where sexuality is now everywhere.
I recommend The Left Hand of Darkness by Ursula K. Le Guin. Good book.
|
|
|
gilbert3729
Commander
Joined: 01 Aug 2004
Posts: 390
Location: New England, USA
|
| Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:58 am |
|
| LightningBoy wrote: | About time someone takes a stand against this plague.
Everyone has the right to get married. That means ANYONE can choose to be legally wedded to someone of the OPPOSITE sex. THAT is the definition of MARRIAGE. When you start changing the meanings of institiutions that a society holds sacred, you're leading to the breakdown of that institution, and ultimately the breakdown of that society.
Civilization thrives on stability. Gay Marriage is unstable. Sweden is a perfect example; Gay Marriage was recently allowed over there, and already the institution has lost all meaning. That's a value of the people which has vanished, and their culture is disintegrating more and more each time they do something like that. |
Um ok??
What do you think about when the government changed the definition of a citizen to include african american's, as well as other races, and women. Do you think that it has brokendown the american society? Change is not automaticlly a negative thing. Without change, our society would still be burning "witches", slavery would be legal, women would not have any rights, etc. Another thing, calling the homosexual way of life a "plague" is HIGHLY offensive.
-------signature-------
Soylent Green is people!!!
John Kerry...
Bringing complete sentences back to the White House.
|
|
|
Trekkie617
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 18 Jul 2003
Posts: 303
Location: Georgia, but I miss Oklahoma
|
| Sun Aug 15, 2004 2:01 am |
|
1. What the Cal. Supreme Court did was right.
2. I believe homosexuality is wrong, religously.
3. I don't shun homosexuality.
Those are three points that will help with my explaining.
I will not condemn nor advocate the legal bonding of a same-sex couple, however what that mayor did was wrong. Those people 'did' know what they were going into. I hope that someday the issue will be resolved, and I will not lie to you that I will be in favor of a heterosexually married US, but if it does end up being the other way, I will not have too much protest against it. In knowing that, I look to the future as a tunnel, eventually that tunnel will end, and at that opening, there will be something none of us will expect, something amazing, going beyond Star Trek and Gene's vision.
I hope I've made my point well, and if you would discuss this with me in more detail great, you can contact me, but I usually don't go around in WN's but I may see this anyway.
|
|
|
LightningBoy
Commodore
Joined: 09 Mar 2003
Posts: 1446
Location: Minnesota, U.S.A.
|
| Sun Aug 15, 2004 4:54 pm |
|
| gilbert3729 wrote: | | LightningBoy wrote: | About time someone takes a stand against this plague.
Everyone has the right to get married. That means ANYONE can choose to be legally wedded to someone of the OPPOSITE sex. THAT is the definition of MARRIAGE. When you start changing the meanings of institiutions that a society holds sacred, you're leading to the breakdown of that institution, and ultimately the breakdown of that society.
Civilization thrives on stability. Gay Marriage is unstable. Sweden is a perfect example; Gay Marriage was recently allowed over there, and already the institution has lost all meaning. That's a value of the people which has vanished, and their culture is disintegrating more and more each time they do something like that. |
Um ok??
What do you think about when the government changed the definition of a citizen to include african american's, as well as other races, and women. Do you think that it has brokendown the american society? Change is not automaticlly a negative thing. Without change, our society would still be burning "witches", slavery would be legal, women would not have any rights, etc. Another thing, calling the homosexual way of life a "plague" is HIGHLY offensive. |
Now you're just spinning.
A. It is not 'redefining' to include blaacks as citizens. The constitution CLEARLY says "All men are created equal.". That's been defined for us already, and those who did not want to include them were wrong to ignore the dfinition, just as "gay marriage" supporters are now.
B. Now you're putting words in my mouth. I never said "change was bad", I said that the complete breakdown of the meaning of staple institutions IS. The suffrage of women and "witchcraft" were never established institutions, they were ideals. Marriage is an institution.
C. When did I say homosexuality was a plague? I said that the rampant spread of Gay Marriages IS a plague. More putting words in my mouth.
Fact is, Gay Marriage is a contradiction of itself. And there is NO REASON they should receive the special treatment of being allowed to redifine words to fit their CHOICE of lifestyle.
|
|
|
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
| Sun Aug 15, 2004 5:00 pm |
|
On the topic of what the court did, it was right. The law is the law and it must be upheld. The people knew the mayor was breaking the law, and they were taking part in breaking it as well. For now, they are just going to have to wait. If you don't like the law, than do something to change it, don't break it.
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Sun Aug 15, 2004 5:02 pm |
|
It all comes down to the fundamental point that disallowing same-sex marriage is a form of persecution and discrimination against homosexuals. You are discriminating against them by saying that they can't marry who they want to marry simply because that person is of the same gender. You are taking away their freedom to choose their partners. I thought we were supposed to be moving away from discrimination.
If an institution needs to be changed to fit the changing views of society, then it should be changed. It's the institution that should change, not society. The institution of marriage, as you call it, doesn't allow same-sex marriage because it never really came up before now. In Star Trek, Spock's mother was a human who married a Vulcan. Apparently in the future the institution of marriage was changed to allow aliens and humans to be legally wed. You don't see the Federation society eroded any more than the late twentieth century has (basically because the Federation is the late twentieth century).
|
|
|
LightningBoy
Commodore
Joined: 09 Mar 2003
Posts: 1446
Location: Minnesota, U.S.A.
|
| Sun Aug 15, 2004 5:04 pm |
|
| Quote: | | C'mon, civilization has gone through more unsettling things than gay marriage. Up until a few hundred years ago, we thought that we were the centre of the solar system! Then Copernicus pointed out that we weren't, he got charged with heresy, and eventually everyone apologized and accepted the heliocentric theory. |
But that was proven wrong, there is no use beleiving a lie. We're talking about moral and legal institutions.
| Quote: | | Many institutions have changed, because change is necessary. Stability brings stagnancy, which brings destruction. Only through adversity, only through change, can humans evolve. Change may be good or bad, but it is still change. Slavery was an institution. But we changed it by abolishing it, and civilization is still around. |
Are you comparing the plight of slaves to Gay people?!?! Slaves were tortured, suffered, and stripped of everything because of nothing they did, only what they were. Gays choose to be open about their lifestyle. They can keep it quiet, then can choose NOT to be flamboyant. Sexuallity, gay or straight, should stay behind CLOSED DOORS anyway. Gay Marriage is not an attempt to bring things more equal, as slavery was, but instead it is an attempt to knock down the majority, to say that gays are allowed to redifinie terms simply becuase they don't like the fact that straight people have an establishment, and gays DO NOT.
| Quote: | | Who is this society fellow and what is are they doing to help us anyway? Opinions change. Hundreds of years ago, science was heresy. But here we are, where science is accepted as fact most of the time. Civilization, so far, is okay, except for the fact that the entertainment industry has sold itself out to reality TV. |
Fine, want to follow opinions? Nearly 70% of Americans beleive that Gay Marriage is wrong. There's a good number right there. As for the state of civilization, I think it's appauling everywhere right now. People are losing freedoms to special interest groups like Gays, who are trying to tear down institutions because they have neither the leadership or the moral confidence to do so.
| Quote: | | As our understanding of the universe evolves, so do our opinions on civilization, and on permissibility. We went through stages where public homosexuality was not allowed, where public sexuality at all was not allowed, to a permissible stage where sexuality is now everywhere. |
Permiscuity leads to disease, emotional breakdown, and lack of values. One of the few ideals from the book "Brave New World" that I agreed with. Sex should stay in the bedroom, in a non-controlled environment, it's extremely corrupting.
|
|
|
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
| Sun Aug 15, 2004 5:07 pm |
|
For goodness sakes just let the poor people marry. Is it harming anyone? I don't think so. Just let them marry. I don't think they should be allowed to have kids, but my gosh, what is sooooo terribly wrong about letting them marry?
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Sun Aug 15, 2004 5:11 pm |
|
| JanewayIsHott wrote: | | For goodness sakes just let the poor people marry. Is it harming anyone? I don't think so. Just let them marry. I don't think they should be allowed to have kids, but my gosh, what is sooooo terribly wrong about letting them marry? |
Indeed. Ontario allows same-sex marriages, and it is still a great place to live. Perhaps not the best place to live, considering that our government is letting us down with healthcare and stuff like that, but that is entirely unrelated to the courts' decisions to allow same-sex marriage. In fact, my sister just got married (to a man), outside a religious setting, and it was a wonderful thing, entirely unaffected by same-sex marriages.
| LightningBoy wrote: | | People are losing freedoms to special interest groups like Gays, who are trying to tear down institutions because they have neither the leadership or the moral confidence to do so. |
No, we're not. Same-sex marriage will not take any freedoms away from heterosexual marriages. It will just allow homosexuals to marry each other.
|
|
|
Theresa
Lux Mihi Deus
Joined: 17 Jun 2001
Posts: 27256
Location: United States of America
|
| Sun Aug 15, 2004 5:19 pm |
|
| JanewayIsHott wrote: | | For goodness sakes just let the poor people marry. Is it harming anyone? I don't think so. Just let them marry. I don't think they should be allowed to have kids, but my gosh, what is sooooo terribly wrong about letting them marry? |
lol, so where do you draw the line? It's ok for them to do this, but not this. This may be ok, but certainly not this. You can't pick and choose.
-------signature-------
Some of us fall by the wayside
And some of us soar to the stars
And some of us sail through our troubles
And some have to live with our scars
|
|
|
gilbert3729
Commander
Joined: 01 Aug 2004
Posts: 390
Location: New England, USA
|
| Sun Aug 15, 2004 5:23 pm |
|
| LightningBoy wrote: | | gilbert3729 wrote: | | LightningBoy wrote: | About time someone takes a stand against this plague.
Everyone has the right to get married. That means ANYONE can choose to be legally wedded to someone of the OPPOSITE sex. THAT is the definition of MARRIAGE. When you start changing the meanings of institiutions that a society holds sacred, you're leading to the breakdown of that institution, and ultimately the breakdown of that society.
Civilization thrives on stability. Gay Marriage is unstable. Sweden is a perfect example; Gay Marriage was recently allowed over there, and already the institution has lost all meaning. That's a value of the people which has vanished, and their culture is disintegrating more and more each time they do something like that. |
Um ok??
What do you think about when the government changed the definition of a citizen to include african american's, as well as other races, and women. Do you think that it has brokendown the american society? Change is not automaticlly a negative thing. Without change, our society would still be burning "witches", slavery would be legal, women would not have any rights, etc. Another thing, calling the homosexual way of life a "plague" is HIGHLY offensive. |
Now you're just spinning.
A. It is not 'redefining' to include blaacks as citizens. The constitution CLEARLY says "All men are created equal.". That's been defined for us already, and those who did not want to include them were wrong to ignore the dfinition, just as "gay marriage" supporters are now.
B. Now you're putting words in my mouth. I never said "change was bad", I said that the complete breakdown of the meaning of staple institutions IS. The suffrage of women and "witchcraft" were never established institutions, they were ideals. Marriage is an institution.
C. When did I say homosexuality was a plague? I said that the rampant spread of Gay Marriages IS a plague. More putting words in my mouth.
Fact is, Gay Marriage is a contradiction of itself. And there is NO REASON they should receive the special treatment of being allowed to redifine words to fit their CHOICE of lifestyle. |
I dont think that anyone is saying a gay marriage shoud have "special Treatment," just the same treatment as a heterosexual marriage. I agree with you that Gay marriage should not have any extra rights, but equal rights.
It is well known that when the founding fathers created that saying "all men are created equal" they did not include african americans or any other race except their own. They did not even recognise that they were men. They considered people of other races as less then themselves. A social darwinism ideology. That is why the govenment had to create special amendments to CHANGE the definition of a citizen.
Also, homosexuality and gay marriage are one in the same. You cant call one of them a PLAGUE without implying that the other one is too.
One more thing, with your argument in Paragraph A you are contradicting yourself. If you believe that all men are created equal then dosent that include gay men and women. If everyone is equal then why do they have different rights?
-------signature-------
Soylent Green is people!!!
John Kerry...
Bringing complete sentences back to the White House.
|
|
|
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
| Sun Aug 15, 2004 5:25 pm |
|
Marriage=Fine, let them marry, it is not a destructive decision to anyone.
Having Kids=Destructive decision because that could damage the children.
You have to draw lines at certain places. That is how people make laws, they decide how far is to far.
|
|
|
Theresa
Lux Mihi Deus
Joined: 17 Jun 2001
Posts: 27256
Location: United States of America
|
| Sun Aug 15, 2004 5:38 pm |
|
| JanewayIsHott wrote: | Marriage=Fine, let them marry, it is not a destructive decision to anyone.
Having Kids=Destructive decision because that could damage the children.
You have to draw lines at certain places. That is how people make laws, they decide how far is to far. |
Yes, and the previous line was, "homosexuals aren't allowed to marry". Now that line is becoming blurred, to fit what people now feel is right and wrong. What's to stop that from changing again?
-------signature-------
Some of us fall by the wayside
And some of us soar to the stars
And some of us sail through our troubles
And some have to live with our scars
|
|
|
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
| Sun Aug 15, 2004 5:41 pm |
|
I don't know. But for me, that just seems as far as anyone should go with it. 
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Star Trek �, in all its various forms, are trademarks & copyrights of Paramount Pictures
This site has no official connection with Star Trek or Paramount Pictures
Site content/Site design elements owned by Morphy and is meant to only be an archive/Tribute to STV.com
|
Search
FAQ
Log in
