E46 BMW Social Directory E46 FAQ 3-Series Discussion Forums BMW Photo Gallery BMW 3-Series Technical Information E46 Fanatics - The Ultimate BMW Resource BMW Vendors General E46 Forum The Tire Rack's Tire Wheel Forum Forced Induction Forum The Off-Topic The E46 BMW Showroom For Sale, For Trade or Wanting to Buy

Welcome to the E46Fanatics forums. E46Fanatics is the premiere website for BMW 3 series owners around the world with interactive forums, a geographical enthusiast directory, photo galleries, and technical information for BMW enthusiasts.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

Go Back   E46Fanatics > Everything Else > The Off-Topic > Political Talk

Political Talk
You may discuss anything regarding politics in this forum ONLY. If you cannot respect others opinions, your access to this forum will be removed.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 03-27-2013, 10:04 AM   #1
Rhumb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 100
My Ride: 2001 M3 Coupe
Prop 8 Before SCOTUS: thoughts and predictions?

Round one for gay marriage: CA's Proposition 8, winners, losers and predictions.

Overall I think the anti Prop 8 side (AP8) made the stronger case and had the more defensible and coherent Constitutional arguments. The pro Prop 8 (PP8) side seemed to fall back on weaker, far less substantiated and more emotional arguments.

As for the justices, pretty predictable for the most part. The more liberal/progressive wing seemed very dubious of Prop 8 and drilled down more into the arguments presented by PP8 side. The conservatives, with Scalia carrying the banner, seemed to be grasping and groping for ways to retain it. In the middle is, of course, Kennedy, who in the past has voted for some landmark gay rights cases. Here he does seem a bit concerned about getting ahead of the social curve too much and perhaps looking for ways to duck the whole thing altogether or in effect. However, his questioning regarding the effects on children I think are telling.

In the end, and especially in light of the very rapidly evolving societal acceptance of gay marriage, particularly among the under-30 crowd (where even Republicans and evangelicals are for it), they may either just vote it down as essentially a foregone conclusion (don't want to be seen as outdated and retrograde) or perhaps will somehow punt it (say the plaintiffs didn't have proper standing or that it narrowly applies to thise specific intstance) and just let time takes its course anyways.

I see little chance they would uphold it and try to stand athwart of the trends of liberty and social evolution.

On the horizon, well, today, are the oral arguments for repeal of DOMA, which I think does have a much stronger chance of being simply and broadly overturned -- how would a "punt" decision on Prop 8 relate to that? Given the two cases together, punting on Prop 8 really wouldn't make much sense if DOMA is doomed anyways, expect perhaps to try to somehow thread some narrow sliver of space to leave something for the states, but I think that would be an exceedingly narrow and difficult argument to make across the two cases.
Rhumb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2013, 10:14 AM   #2
2000_328CI
DK Jack Sparrow
 
2000_328CI's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Isla de Muerta | DC/VA
Posts: 29,023
My Ride: 328Ci | Range Rover
Send a message via AIM to 2000_328CI Send a message via MSN to 2000_328CI
Will get shot down.. But it's not a huge win for the pro-gays of the world... Because all it will say is that the states have to vote for or against gay rights... The fed will basically conclude they can't push it on a national level.. Which is the right move.
__________________

Everything you need to know on muffler deletes : http://forum.e46fanatics.com/showthread.php?t=745244
2000_328CI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2013, 10:24 AM   #3
NFRs2000nyc
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: NYC/NJ
Posts: 904
My Ride: 2003 FormulaRedS2000
Just a bunch of huff and puff. For prop 8, they will shove it back to the states (or just reject taking the case in the first place) shafting the California voters that voted no, and that's that. For DOMA, they will again dodge it and shove it back to the states. They will NOT rule DOMA unconstitutional. The same rationale Roberts used to pass Obamacare will play..the people deserve the government they elected. Clinton signed it into law, and no one has tried to remove it. Simple as that. This is just a media frenzy case, it isn't a "big" case by any means.
__________________
NFRs2000nyc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2013, 11:21 AM   #4
Act of God
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: NY
Posts: 334
My Ride: 3.5 Liters of fury
Send a message via AIM to Act of God
This is a perfect opportunity to get government out of the marriage business. California Civil Unions provide EVERY benefit of marriage to gay couples. Why not make it for all couples? That is the best answer. Let people get 'married' outside of government. Go to a church, elvis, boat captain, wizard...I don't care.

Marriage is outside of the scope of the power of the federal government. This is the best solution. I find it odd that the gay community is petitioning the government that is allegedly restricting their rights for help. Why not just tell them to f-off and mind their own business? Do you want freedom or do you want acceptance/normalcy? Me thinks they want the latter.

I also think a lot of causeheads are more interested in scoring political points than actually caring about gay marriage. One of my best friends since college is gay and he's staunchly against gay marriage and is on the "get government out of it" train.
__________________
Gold Medal Recipient: Jimmy Rustling (2014)

“They have the guns and therefore we are for peace and for reformation through the ballot. When we have the guns then it will be through the bullet.” - Saul Alinsky, quoting Lenin

Last edited by Act of God; 03-27-2013 at 11:23 AM.
Act of God is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2013, 11:28 AM   #5
2000_328CI
DK Jack Sparrow
 
2000_328CI's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Isla de Muerta | DC/VA
Posts: 29,023
My Ride: 328Ci | Range Rover
Send a message via AIM to 2000_328CI Send a message via MSN to 2000_328CI
Edit: the amazing thing about this is that almost everyone agrees its a state's decision to make... It's just that the judgement made by the people in California went against "progress".

If the voters went the other direction, it wouldn't have gone to the Supreme Court. This is just a chance for the Supreme Court to override the voice of the people.
__________________

Everything you need to know on muffler deletes : http://forum.e46fanatics.com/showthread.php?t=745244
2000_328CI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2013, 11:29 AM   #6
Act of God
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: NY
Posts: 334
My Ride: 3.5 Liters of fury
Send a message via AIM to Act of God
Good to see I'm influential

http://dailycaller.com/2013/03/26/li...iage-equality/

Quote:
This week the Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments regarding two potentially watershed cases involving the right of gay Americans to be married. Hollingsworth v. Perry deals with California's gay marriage ban (known as Prop 8), while United States v. Windsor deals with the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

Rather than engaging in the tea-leaf reading we lawyers shamelessly refer to as "Supreme Court analysis" or getting bogged down in jurisprudential minutiae, I would like to focus on a promising phenomenon on the American right: the broadening understanding that conservatism and advocacy for limited government necessitate removing the government from the institution of marriage altogether, which will inevitably produce marriage equality under the law.

Though there remains immense hostility in some segments of the American right toward gay marriage, as a matter of both principle and practicality (not to mention political viability) it is time for conservatives to embrace gay marriage.

As a matter of principle, the argument is charmingly simple: from where does the government derive the authority to prohibit consenting adults from marrying each other?

Though the word "traditional" has erroneously become attached to the concept, the state licensure of marriage contracts is not traditional in any sense of the word. State licensing regimes replaced church- and contract-based marriage only in the last few centuries, and are the byproducts of a sordid period of American history when governments took it upon themselves to prevent people of different races from marrying one another (licensing subsequently became a source of revenue generation for the same governments, which is why the practice continued even after the boogeyman of miscegenation was largely snuffed out).

In short, the state co-option of marriage was an exercise in massive government infringement on the natural rights of individual citizens, not a hearkening back to "traditional" values. Prior to that, marriage was widely considered a religious and contractual (i.e., a private) affair, not an institution of the state. For advocates of limited government who believe that the state has only the power to protect life, liberty, and property, it should be easy to condemn and oppose the racist, extortive practice of states usurping marriage regulation from churches and civil society.

There are, of course, certain blocs of conservatives whose support for marriage regulation will not be dissuaded by its statist basis. Many social conservatives hold religious or moral views that compel them to support socially authoritarian policies in furtherance of those views. That viewpoint seems to be losing its hold on the right, but it remains a political force for the time being.

For those who believe such things, there is another, more practical reason to embrace the deregulation of marriage: the Supreme Court is inevitably going to incorporate gay Americans into the "protected classes" of the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause, thus revoking from the state the ability to discriminate between homosexual and heterosexual marriage. That watershed moment may come in a matter of months (rulings on Hollingsworth and Windsor are expected this June) or years, but the writing is plainly on the wall.

Whenever that ruling comes to pass, the federal and state governments and their social conservative constituents are going to have two choices: sanction all marriages, or sanction none. Once again, the choice for the advocate of limited government seems clear. Social conservatives simply haven't the power to stem the tide of gay marriage acceptance, but they can subvert the authority of the government to impose that acceptance upon them by removing the government from the process entirely and returning marriage to the churches and to the people.

Marriage belongs to civil society and to individual citizens, not to the state. That is the traditional position, that is the conservative position, that is the moral position, and that is the position that we on the right must adopt if we're to maintain our limited government principles and any semblance of political credibility.
Then again, such a simple solution doesn't further anyone's politics so I doubt the mouth breathers will go for it.
__________________
Gold Medal Recipient: Jimmy Rustling (2014)

“They have the guns and therefore we are for peace and for reformation through the ballot. When we have the guns then it will be through the bullet.” - Saul Alinsky, quoting Lenin

Last edited by Act of God; 03-27-2013 at 11:31 AM.
Act of God is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2013, 11:58 AM   #7
SLVR JDM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Work
Posts: 1,522
My Ride: reclining rear seats
Where's the IDGAF option?
__________________


** Removed **
SLVR JDM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2013, 12:10 PM   #8
casino is no lie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: CDT
Posts: 76
My Ride: M54B30
Allowing same sex couples to marry would be a nice start.
__________________
casino is no lie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2013, 12:33 PM   #9
Xcelratr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: So Cal - 310
Posts: 958
My Ride: 04 330Ci ZHP
For practical purposes, like it or not, interpersonal relationships have a bearing on many govt functions: probate courts, tax laws, insurance regs, family/divorce courts, medical situations that involve next-of-kin, spousal communications privilege in civil and criminal cases, and so on.

So the Federal govt has to have a functional definition of what constitutes a married couple. There's really no way around that.

As long as marriage continues to be a civil institution for the purposes stated above, denying access to that civil institution to people based on gender or sexual orientation is a violation of their civil rights. The Federal govt has the responsibility and authority to prevent states from enacting local laws that violate the civil rights of US citizens. And no, the majority isn't allowed to legislate away the civil rights of the minority.
__________________
----------------------------------------------
Quote:
As a juror, do you think the trial was a publicity stunt?

Yes
----------------------------------------------
Xcelratr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2013, 01:33 PM   #10
Rhumb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 100
My Ride: 2001 M3 Coupe
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xcelratr View Post
For practical purposes, like it or not, interpersonal relationships have a bearing on many govt functions: probate courts, tax laws, insurance regs, family/divorce courts, medical situations that involve next-of-kin, spousal communications privilege in civil and criminal cases, and so on.

So the Federal govt has to have a functional definition of what constitutes a married couple. There's really no way around that.

As long as marriage continues to be a civil institution for the purposes stated above, denying access to that civil institution to people based on gender or sexual orientation is a violation of their civil rights. The Federal govt has the responsibility and authority to prevent states from enacting local laws that violate the civil rights of US citizens. And no, the majority isn't allowed to legislate away the civil rights of the minority.
This ^

Ideally, I think a strict church/state separation here would be the ideal: leave the grubby, prosaic monetary and legal aspects to the state(s) to be governed under purely secular "civil unions" and leave the sacred and religious aspects to whatever religious/faith institutions under "marriage" -- and keep the two terms distinct and apart.

Unfortunately, this is not at all the case, the secular and the religious are intertwined and thus, needlessly in conflict. "Marriage" covers a mix of secular legal and civil rights and benefits as well as a range of religious and faith beliefs and tenets that can then be difficult to subsequently tease apart. Gay couples, and their children, are being materially disadvantaged and hurt by Prop 8 and the myriad other anti-gay-marriage statutes.

This really is a exemplar of the dangers of mixing church and state and a good argument for the clean separation wherever possible. In the end, the civil aspects of "marriage" are clearly in conflict with several parts of the Constitution, including various basic rights, which make addressing it at the national level unavoidable.

Much as slavery, or more recently, laws against sodomy and interracial marriage, violated basic American rights that could not be left to states to infringe upon, so is the case with gay marriage. SCJ Kennedy himself was a crucial vote and opinion in several landmark cases that lay such a predicate, so as much as he seems to want; I think it would be difficult for him, both personally and judicially, to turn his back on those precedents.

I think these laws fail on all three levels of judicial scrutiny on laws conflicting with constitutional due process or equal protection issues related to the Fifth Amendment or Fourteenth Amendment, even the lowest “rational basis” standard and certainly not the more stringent “intermediate” or “strict” levels of scrutiny reserved for the most basic of rights, of which marriage has already been defined as one.

The good news for conservatives, social or otherwise, is that if these laws are struck down, that will do absolutely nothing to impinge upon or impede their own practices and beliefs when it comes to marriage one iota. They will retain and enjoy every legal right, privilege and benefit their own marriage conferred upon them that they had before these laws were struck down. They and their religious institutions can continue to define marriage however they wish and live their lives accordingly.

While the SCOTUS may want to kick it down the street or down to the state level, it will only end right back up on their steps so they might as well deal with it.
Rhumb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2013, 01:50 PM   #11
NFRs2000nyc
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: NYC/NJ
Posts: 904
My Ride: 2003 FormulaRedS2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by casino is no lie View Post
Allowing same sex couples to marry would be a nice start.
I believe the government should rearrange their benefits allocation. I don't think it's fair for gay OR straight couples to be the only ones to reap the government benefits of "companionship."

What about those that never found someone to marry? What about those living with their sick brother their entire life? In my eyes, the government should not be involved in marriage, but rather a domestic partnership, which can be ANY TWO PEOPLE that live together and file together. It can be a mother daughter, gay guys, straight couples, whatever. Marriage should be a civil issue, and "domestic partnership" can be a government issue in regards to taxes, etc. Agree or disagree?
__________________
NFRs2000nyc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2013, 02:13 PM   #12
casino is no lie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: CDT
Posts: 76
My Ride: M54B30
Quote:
Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc View Post
I believe the government should rearrange their benefits allocation. I don't think it's fair for gay OR straight couples to be the only ones to reap the government benefits of "companionship."

What about those that never found someone to marry? What about those living with their sick brother their entire life? In my eyes, the government should not be involved in marriage, but rather a domestic partnership, which can be ANY TWO PEOPLE that live together and file together. It can be a mother daughter, gay guys, straight couples, whatever. Marriage should be a civil issue, and "domestic partnership" can be a government issue in regards to taxes, etc. Agree or disagree?
I am looking forward to the lower taxes associated with being married. I need something to offset how much my wife is going to cost me in the long-term.
__________________
casino is no lie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2013, 02:14 PM   #13
Born Again
Registered User
 
Born Again's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Tis quite a statement. Where do you live - where do we all live? in our minds? our souls? our bodies?
Posts: 4,660
My Ride: She aint much 330ci
Quote:
Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc View Post
I believe the government should rearrange their benefits allocation. I don't think it's fair for gay OR straight couples to be the only ones to reap the government benefits of "companionship."

What about those that never found someone to marry? What about those living with their sick brother their entire life? In my eyes, the government should not be involved in marriage, but rather a domestic partnership, which can be ANY TWO PEOPLE that live together and file together. It can be a mother daughter, gay guys, straight couples, whatever. Marriage should be a civil issue, and "domestic partnership" can be a government issue in regards to taxes, etc. Agree or disagree?
wow we kind of agree here.
__________________

best mod to date : OEM grocery bag holder

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zell View Post
E46Fanatics - the Honda community of gun owners. Keep staying classy, I'm sure you all are going to be excellent examples of how to keep gun rights from being infringed. :facepalm:
Born Again is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2013, 02:29 PM   #14
Act of God
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: NY
Posts: 334
My Ride: 3.5 Liters of fury
Send a message via AIM to Act of God
Quote:
Originally Posted by casino is no lie View Post
I am looking forward to the lower taxes associated with being married. I need something to offset how much my wife is going to cost me in the long-term.
That's discriminatory, seriously. There is no reason that single people should have to pay a higher tax rate than those in government-sanctioned relationships. I already pay school taxes, federal taxes, etc. Why should I (or you currently) be paying more than people who get married? If anything, people who have kids are using more resources and should be paying more.

I would like to see this get challenged.
__________________
Gold Medal Recipient: Jimmy Rustling (2014)

“They have the guns and therefore we are for peace and for reformation through the ballot. When we have the guns then it will be through the bullet.” - Saul Alinsky, quoting Lenin
Act of God is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2013, 02:35 PM   #15
casino is no lie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: CDT
Posts: 76
My Ride: M54B30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Act of God View Post
That's discriminatory, seriously. There is no reason that single people should have to pay a higher tax rate than those in government-sanctioned relationships.
I agree. But I won't be returning the money.
__________________
casino is no lie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2013, 03:13 PM   #16
Green_Shine
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North
Posts: 373
My Ride: Back seat riding
Quote:
Originally Posted by casino is no lie View Post
I am looking forward to the lower taxes associated with being married. I need something to offset how much my wife is going to cost me in the long-term.





Quote:
Originally Posted by Act of God View Post
That's discriminatory, seriously. There is no reason that single people should have to pay a higher tax rate than those in government-sanctioned relationships. I already pay school taxes, federal taxes, etc. Why should I (or you currently) be paying more than people who get married? If anything, people who have kids are using more resources and should be paying more.

I would like to see this get challenged.
The idea behind the benefits of married couples was to help instill and push the idea that a husband and wife are the beginnings and rewards to a stable family.

With that being said, one would assume the singles would have more money to donate to taxes than a money strapped married couple with the possibly of kids. Similar to how the government assumes one who makes a lot of money should pay more money into taxes.
__________________
Green_Shine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2013, 03:16 PM   #17
rapier7
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: ATL
Posts: 78
My Ride: Subaru BRZ
I don't see SCOTUS striking down Prop 8 as unconstitutional. You want to change the law? Then actually change the law. Don't rely on a judge to side with your pet causes.
__________________
http://meta-rhetoric.com - Unfiltered Reality
rapier7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2013, 03:17 PM   #18
Act of God
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: NY
Posts: 334
My Ride: 3.5 Liters of fury
Send a message via AIM to Act of God
Quote:
Originally Posted by Green_Shine View Post
With that being said, one would assume the singles would have more money to donate to taxes than a money strapped married couple with the possibly of kids. Similar to how the government assumes one who makes a lot of money should pay more money into taxes.
Given that many families now work on 2 incomes I would submit that single people are working with less money and therefore should be paying less taxes. I'm trying to buy a house solo, it isn't fun. My stupid friends with their 100k/year teacher wives are having no problem footing mortgages on 500k+ houses. Not only is my 'family' income lower than theirs combined, I'm paying higher taxes than them both. wee-tarded
__________________
Gold Medal Recipient: Jimmy Rustling (2014)

“They have the guns and therefore we are for peace and for reformation through the ballot. When we have the guns then it will be through the bullet.” - Saul Alinsky, quoting Lenin

Last edited by Act of God; 03-27-2013 at 03:17 PM.
Act of God is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2013, 03:36 PM   #19
Green_Shine
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North
Posts: 373
My Ride: Back seat riding
Quote:
Originally Posted by Act of God View Post
Given that many families now work on 2 incomes I would submit that single people are working with less money and therefore should be paying less taxes. I'm trying to buy a house solo, it isn't fun. My stupid friends with their 100k/year teacher wives are having no problem footing mortgages on 500k+ houses. Not only is my 'family' income lower than theirs combined, I'm paying higher taxes than them both. wee-tarded
lol I'm married to a teacher..Trust me, the additional money you pay in taxes in less than the cost of a wife.
__________________
Green_Shine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-27-2013, 03:49 PM   #20
Rhumb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 100
My Ride: 2001 M3 Coupe
Quote:
Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc View Post
I believe the government should rearrange their benefits allocation. I don't think it's fair for gay OR straight couples to be the only ones to reap the government benefits of "companionship."

What about those that never found someone to marry? What about those living with their sick brother their entire life? In my eyes, the government should not be involved in marriage, but rather a domestic partnership, which can be ANY TWO PEOPLE that live together and file together. It can be a mother daughter, gay guys, straight couples, whatever. Marriage should be a civil issue, and "domestic partnership" can be a government issue in regards to taxes, etc. Agree or disagree?
A very interesting perspective, one I've toyed with at times: why should marriage/civil unions be preferentially treated at all by governments, especially based upon somewhat vague and abstract concepts like strengthening social stability? It really boils down to social engineering which I presumed many/most conservatives to be against.

Perhaps for the sake of civil benefits of whatever stripe, domestic partnerships should be defined even more broadly than "marriages," whatever the gender of those involved, though it would certainly include marriages. I think there are benefits to this approach, including:
  • Simply removing the sacred element altogether from civil/domestic unions, leave that solely as the domain of individuals and their faith institutions.
  • Broaden the support for the wide range of socially-stabilizing domestic partnerships to increase the net stability of our society, be they husband and wife, wife and wife, brother and brother, mother and daughter, etc.
  • Let individuals more freely decide and define these relationships they wish to undertake themselves rather than having governments do so.
  • Create more empirical needs-based societal benefits rather than simply presumptive ones based on preferred groups and abstract goals.
  • These empirical, needs-based societal benefits would be better targeted to those that would most need and benefit from them.
Why should married couples receive whatever preferences/benefits simply for being married under the presumption of raising families? Rather, shouldn't we target those resources towards actual rather than presumptive children? If society feels it has an interest in investing in perpetuating itself via children, then focus those resources on those children.

As a new dad, yeah, its nice getting some modest general tax break simply for marching down an aisle, but the real money hit comes when junior popped out of the oven and that marriage benefit hardly begins to offset the added financial burdens of raising said spawn (it should hardly be any wonder birthrates have plummeted, kids have simply gotten too expensive for many/most to consider).

Anyway, again, a very interesting perspective and one worth discussing.
Rhumb is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Censor is ON





All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:44 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
(c) 1999 - 2011 performanceIX Inc - privacy policy - terms of use