Essay Topics
Types of Essays
Essay Checklist
Word Counter
Readability Score
Essay Rewriter
Today one of the most advocated reforms discussed in law reviews and one of the most explosive political questions facing lawmakers is the issue of legalizing same-sex unions. If same-sex marriage is legalized, it could be one of the most revolutionary policy decisions in the history of American family law. The potential consequences, positive and negative, for children, parents, same-sex couples and families are enormous. "Webster's Dictionary and Thesaurus Deluxe Edition" defines marriage as, "the act of marrying or the ceremony entered into by a man and woman so as to live together as husband and wife." This definition has been the foundation of our culture and the cornerstone of the "traditional concept of family." Homosexual activists would like to modify the definition to include same-sex partners; making the act of marriage a simple civil contract between two individuals regardless of their sex. Marriage, however, is much more than merely a simple contract or a vow to love one another. The act of marriage entails legally imposed financial responsibility and legally authorized financial benefits. Registered partnerships recognize a same-sex partnership at a national level entailing most but not all of the benefits and hardships of a civil marriage and requires a preliminary affirmation of the relationship by a government authority. A domestic partnership is recognition by a local or provincial jurisdiction, including businesses and corporations. Obviously, a union to grant benefits to same-sex couples does not carry the same weight as recognition by the government of that relationship. There are currently 21 states without marriage recognition laws and 29 states that do have marriage recognition laws. Married couples have certain benefits that are denied to single people or to people in non-marital situations. Some of these benefits or rights are: 1. Right to joint custody of children 2. Right to adopt children 3. Right to inherit one another's property 4. Spousal immigration rights, including the right to extend one's citizenship to one's spouse or children 5. Rights to power of attorney 6. Co-ownership of property 7. Execution of living wills 8. Medical decision-making power in cases of incapacitation 9. Rights to share insurance and pension benefits 10. Right to receive and dispose of a spouse's body in the event of death Same-sex unions recognized by the government through the act of marriage would provide the legal recognition and protection that is currently being denied. One of the first states to address the issue of same-sex marriage was Hawaii when in 1991 three same-sex couples had been denied marriage licenses by the Hawaii Department of Health resulting in a lawsuit against the director of the Department. Hawaiian law required couples wishing to marry to obtain a marriage license; the law did not specifically indicate that only heterosexual couples could marry. One couple felt the law to be unconstitutional as it prohibited same-sex marriage and allowed state officials the right to deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples on account of the heterosexuality requirement that was not specifically indicated. The court upheld the heterosexuality marriage requirement as a matter of law and dismissed the case. Just recently, however the Circuit Court of Hawaii decided that Hawaii had violated the couple's constitutional rights by the 14th Amendment and that they could be recognized as a marriage. The court also found that Hawaii's constitution expressly discriminated against homosexuals and that because of Hawaii's anti-discrimination law they must re-evaluate the situation. The state has asked for a stay of judgment until the appeal has been convened. This case has been a positive step toward actual marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples and will have a tremendous impact on how other states will deal with same-sex marriages. Another state to address the issue of same-sex marriage was California in 1994. The legislature passed a domestic partnership bill that provided official state registration of same-sex couples and provided limited marital rights and privileges relating to hospital visitation, wills and estates, and powers of attorney. Governor Wilson eventually vetoed the bill, but its passage by the legislature represented a notable political achievement for advocates of same-sex marriage. The state of California is considered a cultural leader - meaning that if it is accepted in California it will be accepted anywhere else. The impact of Hawaii's decision will impact marriage laws in all of the United States. Article IV of the United States Constitution states that, "Full faith and credit shall be given in each State to the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of every other State." Marriage qualifies for recognition under each section: 1. Creation of marriage is a "public act" because it occurs pursuant to a statutory scheme, is performed by a legally designated official and because marriage is an act by the state. 2. A marriage certificate is a "record" with an outlined legal effect showing that a marriage has been validly contracted, that the spouses meet the qualifications of the marriage statutes, and they have duly entered matrimony. Public records of lesser consequence (i.e. birth certificates, automobile licenses) have been given full faith and credit. 3. Celebrating a marriage is a "judicial proceeding" where judges or court clerks perform the act of marriage. It would seem evident that if heterosexual couples use Article IV as a safety net and guarantee for their wedlock, then that same right should be given to same-sex couples. Article IV has often been used as a reference point for interracial marriages in the south when those states do not want to recognize the legitimacy of a union by another state. If this Article is used for interracial marriages, there is no logical reason it should be denied in the use of same-sex marriages. Judges do not need the popularity of the people on the Federal or circuit court level to make new precedent. The judiciary system has its own mind on how to interpret the Constitution, which can be different from American popular belief. The use of constitutional rights as an argument for same-sex marriage affirms that there is a fundamental constitutional right to marry, or a broader right of privacy or of intimate association. The essence of this right is the private, intimate association of consenting adults who want to share their lives and commitment with each other and that same-sex couples have just as much intimacy and need for marital privacy as heterosexual couples; laws allowing heterosexual but not same-sex couples to marry infringes upon and discriminates against this fundamental right. Just as the Supreme Court compelled states to allow interracial marriage by recognizing the claimed right as part of the fundamental constitutional right to marry, of privacy and of intimate association so should states be compelled now to recognize the fundamental right of same-sex couples to do the same. Legislation enacted by Congress in 1996 has allowed individual states the right to react differently to any intrusion of marriage that they feel is not proper. It is called the "Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)" and it states that each individual state does not have to recognize same-sex marriages registered in other states and that the Federal Government only recognizes marriages of the opposite sex. It would seem that by allowing individual states to alter and change what the meaning of marriage is, could create a disaster if even heterosexual couples wish to wed. The underlying principle of DOMA is that states now have the right to redefine what they feel is or is not appropriate "marriage behavior" and what will be legal or illegal in their state. DOMA has been widely criticized as intensely unconstitutional, bias and discriminatory toward homosexuals and therefore against the United States Constitution and the 14th Amendment proclaiming all citizens equal. Fearing that the state may have to recognize same-gender marriages from Hawaii because of the controversy over DOMA, the state legislatures of Arizona, South Dakota, Utah, Oklahoma, Kansas, Idaho and Georgia have made preemptive strikes and enacted state legislation that bars recognition of same-sex marriages. Several other state legislatures including Alabama, Arkansas, California, Delaware, Louisiana, New Mexico, Kentucky, Maine, South Carolina and Wisconsin have attempted to enact similar legislation but failed. Ask yourself this question, is society discriminating against same-sex couples by denying them a marriage license? The answer is yes all marriage laws are discriminatory. The law discriminates on many levels such as age, gender and marital status. In order to eliminate discrimination and allow same-sex marriages, the state would have to approve bigamy, polygamy and under age marriage. Now ask yourself this, would this make for a healthy society or is marriage law discrimination for the common good? Saying that interracial marriage discrimination and same-sex marriage discrimination are the same could not be further from the truth. The difference is that homosexuals are not a minority like Native Americans, African Americans, or Latinos. In order to be a minority you have to prove the following and homosexuals do not meet any of these criteria: 1. Prove that homosexuality is inborn, innate and unchangeable. 2. Homosexuals need to provide proof that as a collective group they are economically disadvantaged. 3. Homosexuals need to demonstrate they are politically powerless. In the words of Reggie White, a former Green Bay Packer football player, "Homosexuality is a choice, not a race." Therefore, the obstacles in front of an interracial couple are not entirely the same as a same-sex couple. It is not a battle of civil rights that they are fighting but more of a battle to get society to acknowledge their relationships as real with a legal symbol called a marriage certificate. Another aspect to consider in same-sex marriages is the concept of family. Our public schools encourage discussions on the different types of family dynamics, such as single parent households, same-sex parent households and interracial households. Health and sex-education classes include discussions on homosexuality and the acceptance of this lifestyle by society. Children today are aware that every "family" is different. Every family does not consist of a mom, a dad and children. Some families have two moms or two dads, or just a mom, or just a dad. Family is also defined in "Webster's" as "parents and their children; a group of people connected by blood or marriage and sharing common ancestry; the members of a household." Just like marriage, family cannot be defined by a piece of paper. It is the heartstrings of the members woven together that make up a "family." The church and state always have a differing opinion on social and political issues and this issue is no different. If you were to ask clergymen their views of same-sex marriage you would find that most ministers are strongly united in support of a traditional definition of marriage. A national study of Protestant clergy asked if they would support or oppose laws defining marriage as only between one man and one woman found 85% of all ministers strongly in support of such laws; 6% somewhat supportive; 4% somewhat opposed and 4% strongly opposed. It was interesting to note that a minister's political views strongly influenced his/her view on traditional marriage laws. Over 99% of Republican ministers strongly support these laws; 84% of registered independents and 55% of Democrats. Most of the ministers who do support same-sex marriages belong to the traditional mainline denominations. Surprisingly this is one issue that the clergymen are pretty united on. Even though the Government has created registries for same-sex couples, it has avoided impinging on the rights of the church to create their own policies regarding same-sex marriages. Bigotry and prejudice still exist in our evolving society and traditionally people fear what is strange and unfamiliar to them. The obstacles out in front of same-sex couples is in the name of "normal" people that actively seek to define their definition to everyone. As they cling to the Constitution for their freedoms in turn they deny those same freedoms to "not normal" people because they would then lose their control and thereby create change. It would seem they are afraid to change and have not yet accepted that the world is constantly changing. On the other hand you have "ordinary" people who have already begun to make a great difference in shaping the future of marriage laws in the United States by doing the following: 1. Being open to all people, even those they disagree with 2. Conducting studies of the issues involved 3. Have a willingness to take stances that will be ridiculed by elites 4. Maintain a cooperative spirit and working together with like-minded people 5. Persistence in the effort to help others understand the importance of the issue It was regular "ordinary" people who first came to this country and created the Constitution and the Bill of Rights so that we can have the freedoms that we have today. Change had to occur in order for laws to be created and enforced. As our culture evolved and changed so did the laws to accommodate those changes. Each change has come with its pros and cons and not everyone is always happy with the outcomes achieved. Allowing same-sex couples to register their partnerships legally in a form different from civil marriage but still affording them the same status in order to obtain the social benefits would acknowledge same-sex relationships as a commitment just as a heterosexual marriage acknowledges a commitment. Whether that commitment in marriage is between two people of the same sex or two people of the opposite sex should not matter. In our generation, most couples who make the commitment to get married don't take it seriously and divorce as soon as the relationship becomes too hard to work at. Maybe same-sex marriages will have the tenacity to make it work through the good and bad times. If a couple works so hard just for the right to get married who are we to say that they won't work just as hard in order to keep the marriage flourishing. Heterosexual couples never had to work hard for the right to be considered "married" so maybe that is why they don't work as hard to stay married. Half the battle is attaining your goal and the other half is maintaining it...that can be true in life as well as in marriage.
Essay Writing Checklist
The following guidelines are designed to give students a checklist to use, whether they are revising individually or as part of a peer review team.
Introduction
  • Is the main idea (i.e., the writer's opinion of the story title) stated clearly?
  • Is the introductory paragraph interesting? Does it make the reader want to keep on reading?
Body Paragraph
  • Does each body paragraph have a clear topic sentence that is related to the main idea of the essay?
  • Does each body paragraph include specific information from the text(including quoted evidence from the text, if required by the instructor)that supports the topic sentence?
  • Is there a clear plan for the order of the body paragraphs (i.e., order of importance, chronology in the story, etc.)?
  • Does each body paragraph transition smoothly to the next?
Conclusion
  • Is the main idea of the essay restated in different words?
  • Are the supporting ideas summarized succinctly and clearly?
  • Is the concluding paragraph interesting? Does it leave an impression on the reader?
Overall Essay
  • Is any important material left unsaid?
  • Is any material repetitious and unnecessary?
  • Has the writer tried to incorporate "voice" in the essay so that it has his/her distinctive mark?
  • Are there changes needed in word choice, sentence length and structure, etc.?
  • Are the quotations (if required) properly cited?
  • Has the essay been proofread for spelling, punctuation, grammar, etc.?
  • Does the essay have an interesting and appropriate title?
the Legalization of Same-Sex Marriages essay
Trending Essay Topics
Reference
Feel free to use content on this page for your website, blog or paper we only ask that you reference content back to us. Use the following code to link this page:
Terms · Privacy · Contact
Essay Topics © 2019

The Legalization Of Same-Sex Marriages Essay

Words: 2355    Pages: 9    Paragraphs: 21    Sentences: 119    Read Time: 08:33
Highlight Text to add correction. Use an editor to spell check essay.
              Today one of the most advocated reforms discussed in law reviews and one of the most explosive political questions facing lawmakers is the issue of legalizing same-sex unions. If same-sex marriage is legalized, it could be one of the most revolutionary policy decisions in the history of American family law. The potential consequences, positive and negative, for children, parents, same-sex couples and families are enormous.
             
             
              "Webster's Dictionary and Thesaurus Deluxe Edition" defines marriage as, "the act of marrying or the ceremony entered into by a man and woman so as to live together as husband and wife. " This definition has been the foundation of our culture and the cornerstone of the "traditional concept of family. " Homosexual activists would like to modify the definition to include same-sex partners; making the act of marriage a simple civil contract between two individuals regardless of their sex. Marriage, however, is much more than merely a simple contract or a vow to love one another. The act of marriage entails legally imposed financial responsibility and legally authorized financial benefits.
             
              Registered partnerships recognize a same-sex partnership at a national level entailing most but not all of the benefits and hardships of a civil marriage and requires a preliminary affirmation of the relationship by a government authority. A domestic partnership is recognition by a local or provincial jurisdiction, including businesses and corporations. Obviously, a union to grant benefits to same-sex couples does not carry the same weight as recognition by the government of that relationship. There are currently 21 states without marriage recognition laws and 29 states that do have marriage recognition laws.
             
              Married couples have certain benefits that are denied to single people or to people in non-marital situations. Some of these benefits or rights are:
             
              1. Right to joint custody of children
              2. Right to adopt children
              3. Right to inherit one another's property
              4. Spousal immigration rights, including the right to extend one's citizenship to one's spouse or children
              5. Rights to power of attorney
              6. Co-ownership of property
              7. Execution of living wills
              8. Medical decision-making power in cases of incapacitation
              9. Rights to share insurance and pension benefits
              10. Right to receive and dispose of a spouse's body in the event of death
             
              Same-sex unions recognized by the government through the act of marriage would provide the legal recognition and protection that is currently being denied.
             
              One of the first states to address the issue of same-sex marriage was Hawaii when in 1991 three same-sex couples had been denied marriage licenses by the Hawaii Department of Health resulting in a lawsuit against the director of the Department. Hawaiian law required couples wishing to marry to obtain a marriage license; the law did not specifically indicate that only heterosexual couples could marry. One couple felt the law to be unconstitutional as it prohibited same-sex marriage and allowed state officials the right to deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples on account of the heterosexuality requirement that was not specifically indicated. The court upheld the heterosexuality marriage requirement as a matter of law and dismissed the case. Just recently, however the Circuit Court of Hawaii decided that Hawaii had violated the couple's constitutional rights by the 14th Amendment and that they could be recognized as a marriage. The court also found that Hawaii's constitution expressly discriminated against homosexuals and that because of Hawaii's anti-discrimination law they must re-evaluate the situation. The state has asked for a stay of judgment until the appeal has been convened. This case has been a positive step toward actual marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples and will have a tremendous impact on how other states will deal with same-sex marriages.
             
              Another state to address the issue of same-sex marriage was California in 1994. The legislature passed a domestic partnership bill that provided official state registration of same-sex couples and provided limited marital rights and privileges relating to hospital visitation, wills and estates, and powers of attorney. Governor Wilson eventually vetoed the bill, but its passage by the legislature represented a notable political achievement for advocates of same-sex marriage. The state of California is considered a cultural leader - meaning that if it is accepted in California it will be accepted anywhere else.
             
              The impact of Hawaii's decision will impact marriage laws in all of the United States. Article IV of the United States Constitution states that, "Full faith and credit shall be given in each State to the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of every other State. " Marriage qualifies for recognition under each section:
             
              1. Creation of marriage is a "public act" because it occurs pursuant to a statutory scheme, is performed by a legally designated official and because marriage is an act by the state.
             
              2. A marriage certificate is a "record" with an outlined legal effect showing that a marriage has been validly contracted, that the spouses meet the qualifications of the marriage statutes, and they have duly entered matrimony. Public records of lesser consequence (i. e. birth certificates, automobile licenses) have been given full faith and credit.
             
              3. Celebrating a marriage is a "judicial proceeding" where judges or court clerks perform the act of marriage.
              It would seem evident that if heterosexual couples use Article IV as a safety net and guarantee for their wedlock, then that same right should be given to same-sex couples. Article IV has often been used as a reference point for interracial marriages in the south when those states do not want to recognize the legitimacy of a union by another state. If this Article is used for interracial marriages, there is no logical reason it should be denied in the use of same-sex marriages.
             
              Judges do not need the popularity of the people on the Federal or circuit court level to make new precedent. The judiciary system has its own mind on how to interpret the Constitution, which can be different from American popular belief. The use of constitutional rights as an argument for same-sex marriage affirms that there is a fundamental constitutional right to marry, or a broader right of privacy or of intimate association. The essence of this right is the private, intimate association of consenting adults who want to share their lives and commitment with each other and that same-sex couples have just as much intimacy and need for marital privacy as heterosexual couples; laws allowing heterosexual but not same-sex couples to marry infringes upon and discriminates against this fundamental right. Just as the Supreme Court compelled states to allow interracial marriage by recognizing the claimed right as part of the fundamental constitutional right to marry, of privacy and of intimate association so should states be compelled now to recognize the fundamental right of same-sex couples to do the same.
             
              Legislation enacted by Congress in 1996 has allowed individual states the right to react differently to any intrusion of marriage that they feel is not proper. It is called the "Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)" and it states that each individual state does not have to recognize same-sex marriages registered in other states and that the Federal Government only recognizes marriages of the opposite sex. It would seem that by allowing individual states to alter and change what the meaning of marriage is, could create a disaster if even heterosexual couples wish to wed. The underlying principle of DOMA is that states now have the right to redefine what they feel is or is not appropriate "marriage behavior" and what will be legal or illegal in their state. DOMA has been widely criticized as intensely unconstitutional, bias and discriminatory toward homosexuals and therefore against the United States Constitution and the 14th Amendment proclaiming all citizens equal. Fearing that the state may have to recognize same-gender marriages from Hawaii because of the controversy over DOMA, the state legislatures of Arizona, South Dakota, Utah, Oklahoma, Kansas, Idaho and Georgia have made preemptive strikes and enacted state legislation that bars recognition of same-sex marriages. Several other state legislatures including Alabama, Arkansas, California, Delaware, Louisiana, New Mexico, Kentucky, Maine, South Carolina and Wisconsin have attempted to enact similar legislation but failed.
             
              Ask yourself this question, is society discriminating against same-sex couples by denying them a marriage license? The answer is yes all marriage laws are discriminatory. The law discriminates on many levels such as age, gender and marital status. In order to eliminate discrimination and allow same-sex marriages, the state would have to approve bigamy, polygamy and under age marriage. Now ask yourself this, would this make for a healthy society or is marriage law discrimination for the common good?
             
              Saying that interracial marriage discrimination and same-sex marriage discrimination are the same could not be further from the truth. The difference is that homosexuals are not a minority like Native Americans, African Americans, or Latinos. In order to be a minority you have to prove the following and homosexuals do not meet any of these criteria:
             
              1. Prove that homosexuality is inborn, innate and unchangeable.
              2. Homosexuals need to provide proof that as a collective group they are economically disadvantaged.
              3. Homosexuals need to demonstrate they are politically powerless.
             
              In the words of Reggie White, a former Green Bay Packer football player, "Homosexuality is a choice, not a race. " Therefore, the obstacles in front of an interracial couple are not entirely the same as a same-sex couple. It is not a battle of civil rights that they are fighting but more of a battle to get society to acknowledge their relationships as real with a legal symbol called a marriage certificate.
             
              Another aspect to consider in same-sex marriages is the concept of family. Our public schools encourage discussions on the different types of family dynamics, such as single parent households, same-sex parent households and interracial households. Health and sex-education classes include discussions on homosexuality and the acceptance of this lifestyle by society. Children today are aware that every "family" is different. Every family does not consist of a mom, a dad and children. Some families have two moms or two dads, or just a mom, or just a dad. Family is also defined in "Webster's" as "parents and their children; a group of people connected by blood or marriage and sharing common ancestry; the members of a household. " Just like marriage, family cannot be defined by a piece of paper. It is the heartstrings of the members woven together that make up a "family. "
             
              The church and state always have a differing opinion on social and political issues and this issue is no different. If you were to ask clergymen their views of same-sex marriage you would find that most ministers are strongly united in support of a traditional definition of marriage. A national study of Protestant clergy asked if they would support or oppose laws defining marriage as only between one man and one woman found 85% of all ministers strongly in support of such laws; 6% somewhat supportive; 4% somewhat opposed and 4% strongly opposed. It was interesting to note that a minister's political views strongly influenced his/her view on traditional marriage laws. Over 99% of Republican ministers strongly support these laws; 84% of registered independents and 55% of Democrats. Most of the ministers who do support same-sex marriages belong to the traditional mainline denominations. Surprisingly this is one issue that the clergymen are pretty united on. Even though the Government has created registries for same-sex couples, it has avoided impinging on the rights of the church to create their own policies regarding same-sex marriages.
             
              Bigotry and prejudice still exist in our evolving society and traditionally people fear what is strange and unfamiliar to them. The obstacles out in front of same-sex couples is in the name of "normal" people that actively seek to define their definition to everyone. As they cling to the Constitution for their freedoms in turn they deny those same freedoms to "not normal" people because they would then lose their control and thereby create change. It would seem they are afraid to change and have not yet accepted that the world is constantly changing.
             
              On the other hand you have "ordinary" people who have already begun to make a great difference in shaping the future of marriage laws in the United States by doing the following:
             
              1. Being open to all people, even those they disagree with
              2. Conducting studies of the issues involved
              3. Have a willingness to take stances that will be ridiculed by elites
              4. Maintain a cooperative spirit and working together with like-minded people
              5. Persistence in the effort to help others understand the importance of the issue
             
              It was regular "ordinary" people who first came to this country and created the Constitution and the Bill of Rights so that we can have the freedoms that we have today. Change had to occur in order for laws to be created and enforced. As our culture evolved and changed so did the laws to accommodate those changes. Each change has come with its pros and cons and not everyone is always happy with the outcomes achieved.
             
              Allowing same-sex couples to register their partnerships legally in a form different from civil marriage but still affording them the same status in order to obtain the social benefits would acknowledge same-sex relationships as a commitment just as a heterosexual marriage acknowledges a commitment. Whether that commitment in marriage is between two people of the same sex or two people of the opposite sex should not matter. In our generation, most couples who make the commitment to get married don't take it seriously and divorce as soon as the relationship becomes too hard to work at. Maybe same-sex marriages will have the tenacity to make it work through the good and bad times. If a couple works so hard just for the right to get married who are we to say that they won't work just as hard in order to keep the marriage flourishing. Heterosexual couples never had to work hard for the right to be considered "married" so maybe that is why they don't work as hard to stay married. Half the battle is attaining your goal and the other half is maintaining it. . . that can be true in life as well as in marriage.
Same Sex Marriage Essay 
"A Worldwide Summary Compiled by IGLHRC in November 1998." International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission. November 1998. 17 November 2002 (http://www.iglhrc.org/news/factsheets/marriage_981103.html)

Chun,Trudy "Same Sex Marriage." US Marriage Laws.com. 17 November 2002 (http://www.usmarriagelaws.com/search/alternative_lifestyles/same_sex_marriage/index.shtml)

Coolidge, David Orgon. "Options Loom in Vermont's Homosexual 'Marriage' Case." Ethics and Public Policy Center. 6 March 1999. 18 November 2002. (http://www.eppc.org/publications/xq/ASP/pubsID.150/qx/pubs_viewdetail.htm)

Elison Research. "Study Shows Overwhelming Majority of Protestant Clergy Soundly Oppose Homosexual Marriage." The American Minister 2001. 18 November 2002. (http://www.ellisonresearch.com/Pastor%20Study/Release%207%20Marriage.htm)

"States Discuss Marriage Laws." Christianity Today.com. 7 February 2000. 17 November 2002 (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2000/002/11.21.html)
Tip: Use our Essay Rewriter to rewrite this essay and remove plagiarism.
Next Same Sex Marriage Essay: Argument Essay Around Gay Marraige

Add Notes

Have suggestions, comments or ideas? Please share below. Don't forget to tag a friend or classmate.
clear
Formatting Help
Submit
SitemapWatch now | La amenaza invisible – Stealth (2005) 1 LINK HD Latino | Clash of Clans Apk