Michael Nellis 25 May 2004
Return to Celebrate Freedom Index
Return to Chronology
25 May 2005
On 23 May I reported on the challenge to All Families Are Special by Norma Simon. This seems to have been a simple challenge brought by a parent with a child in the school district. What I haven't been able to report on as much as I would like, due to time and web space contraints, are recent movements by legislatures to demonize homosexuality. A few actions in the U.S. misohomonism movement that I have covered are:
Recently, there was an article linking to the Oklahoma House Resolution 1039 story at LISNews; which article generated a fair amount of commentary. The most contentious point that was written is this:
Homosexuals cannot have children, its one of the problems with being homosexual.The author of that line qualified it in a follow up message[02], but when I read this, along with the other misperceptions and misrepresentations founded on ignorance, I replied thusly:
First off: Orientation does not necessarily remain fixed throughout a person's life, and it is possible for an individual's orientation to swing several times. So someone who is homosexual today could be married and have had children from his or her heterosexual days. Moreover, since most people don't know that orientation can swing, a marriage partner can sire or bear a child after a swing to homosexuality.These comments generated this in turn:Secondly: There is nothing about homosexuality that stops the production of either sperm or ova, so a lesbian can go to a fertility clinic and ask for artificial insemination. She can even ask if they have any donations on tap from gay men.
Thirdly: Where the hell do you and your idiot political sympathizers get off on making grand proclamations about a process of which you know nothing? Nevermind that nobody knows what even causes orientation in the first place. And to confuse gender or transgenderism with orientation while you're doing it? Ha!
Fourthly: Just where do you slot bisexuals into your narrow and bigoted world view? People who are both homo- and heterosexual at the same time?
Fifth: Given that the religio-political/right-wing is thoroughly anti-intellectual, don't think it's a rather vile and disgusting hypocrisy to suddenly invoke science? Or are you invoking the kind of hate-mongering pseudoscience commonly used by religious bigots?
For people who want real information about homosexuality, you can try the quotations file on homosexuality at my web site or these books: [...][03]
Fourthly: Just where do you slot bisexuals into your narrow and bigoted world view? People who are both homo- and heterosexual at the same time?Well, I did some more research[04] and found some surprising material. I did not find what I wanted on the psychosexual dynamics of bisexuality, but I did find enough to arrive at a new tentative conclusion. It came from a fresh consideration of the Kinsey 7-point scale. The scale rates as follows:I have to make a small correction there. From my point of view, that is, the point of view of a bisexual librarian, most bis don't consider themselves homo or hetero. We're bi. Saying that a bisexual is both homosexual and heterosexual at the same time may sound technically correct, but it's the equivalent of saying that a green car is both yellow and blue at the same time.
0 Exclusively heterosexual with no homosexualLooking at it, I suddenly realized why my above statement was not accurate.
1 Predominantly heterosexual, only incidental homosexual
2 Predominantly heterosexual, but more than incidental homosexual
3 Equally heterosexual and homosexual
4 Predominantly homosexual, but more than incidental heterosexual
5 Predominantly homosexual, only incidental heterosexual
6 Exclusively homosexual with no heterosexual
X No social-sex contacts or reactions
Consider the electrical charges of electrons (-) and protons (+). Because an atom normally contains equal numbers of both, the net charge of atoms is 0. The atom becomes an ion (a charged particle) only if there is too many or too few electrons. My current tentative conclusion is that the sexual "charges" of orientation cancel out each other in bisexual people. If this surmise is valid, then the "net charge" of bisexuality is 0, and the term bisexual itself becomes inaccurate. A better term might be "anasexual"; indicating an "orientation" of no particular orientation at all.[05] This conclusion hinges on hetero- and homosexual orientation not being mutually exclusive while still being diametrically opposed.
Of course this surmise could be wrong, and I might be reading too much into the reply from the bisexual; after all, that was intended as nothing more than a statement of self-identification.
Moving along to the matter of transsexuality[06]. This (simplistically), is an issue of physiology with psychosexual dynamics inextricably intertwined. Transsexualism comes into play when embryonic development generates a child who is outwardly of one sex (what you are physically), but inwardly of the opposite gender (what you are psychologically). Expressions of transsexualism are vilified simply because the intolerant are binary thinkers. Everything is either/or, yes/no, on/off, white/black, male/female. There is little room in such a mindset for the fine-tuning of thought required by complexity and nuance, and since transsexuals do not fit into the category of: Us/Insider/Friend, they must perforce fall into the category of Them/Outsider/Enemy.
Then there is Biological Exuberance. This book is as much a media critism as it is a pop science book about homosexuality in the wild. Dr. Bruce Bagemihl examines the science-culture repudiation of homosexuality as a norm with which the field of biology is rife. (You can see the extracted material in my quotations files.) At one point he wrote:
As we have seen, one way that zoologists have tried to avoid classifying same-sex activity as "homosexuality" is by using terminology and behavioral categories that deny it is sexual activity at all. This approach also extends to the interpretations, explanations, and "functions" attributed to same-sex behavior, even when it involves the most overt and explicit of activities. Astounding as it sounds, a number of scientists have actually argued that when a female Bonobo wraps her legs around another female, rubbing her own clitoris against her partner's while emitting screams of enjoyment, this is actually "greeting" behavior, or "tension-regulation" behavior, or "social-bonding", or "food-exchange" behavior -- almost anything, it seems, besides pleasurable sexual behavior. Similar "interpetations" have been proposed for many other species (involving both males and females), allowing scientists to claim that these animals do not really engage in "genuine" (i.e., purely sexual) homosexual activity. But what heterosexual activity is ever "purely" sexual?He also examines some of the history of this bias, along with how contemporary interpretations of reproductive conduct overall can often seem nonsensical in light of the critical review of documentary material. The kicker, however, is that the book very flatly states that homosexuality has been identified widely in wildlife; mammalian, avian, and insectoid. And I'm not talking about the usual misperceptions of homosexual behavior in the wild:
--Biological Exuberance, page 106
Homosexual behavior occurs in more than 450 different kinds of animals worldwide, and is found in every major geographic region and every major animal group. It should come as no surprise, then, that animal homosexuality is not a single, uniform pehnomenon. Whether one is discussing the forms it takes, its frequency, or its relationship to heterosexual activity, same-sex behavior in animals exhibits every conceivable variation.Most especially, he challenges the unwarranted assumption that homosexuality is some kind of genetic nonsurvival behavior:[07]
--Bruce Bagemihl, Biological Exuberance, pg 12The complete pattern of human heterosexuality is not found in any other species (social-class differences in sexual behavior, pair-bonding, face-to-face copulation, hidden menstrual/estrous cycles, oral and anal intercourse, etc.), although any single aspect of human heterosexuality can be found in some animal species. The same statement can be made about human homosexuality.
--James Weinrich, biologist, quoted in Biological Exuberance, pg 59
In 1959 noted evolutionary biologist George Evelyn Hutchinson published a proposal that was radical for its time (and even now remains controversial): he advanced the first theory of the evolutonary value of homosexuality. Hutchinson argued that since homosexuality appears to be a biological constant, appearing in generation after generation (in both humans and animals) at a rate that far exceeds that of biological "mistakes," it must perform some useful function rather than be an aberrant behavior, and moreover, it must have a genetic basis. Nearly 20 years later, in 1975, renowned biologist Edward O. Wilson published his seminal work Sociobiology, in which he took up the same theme; homosexuality must be beneficial to a species if it keeps reappearing. Since then, many other "positive" explanations have been proposed for animal homosexuality: some provocative, some absurd, but all revolving around the idea that breeding, heterosexuality, or the overall reproductive profile of an individual or species may be enhanced by homosexuality.Golly-gee. Could those wicked and vile perverts out there actually be contributing to the genetic health of humanity instead of poisoning us all?
--Biological Exuberance, pages 168-169
Another interesting facet of wildlife homosexuality is some of the documentary evidence. Photographs of a female couple engaging in face-to-face sex (the supine female has her hands clasped around her partner's shoulder blades, and her legs wrapped around the hips; looks just like a scene from a porno flick), a walrus masturbating, a female Orang-utan masturbating using a tool, one ape manually stimulating another male, primates kissing, and male-on-male fellatio. The book also describes fellatio à soixante-neuf (in both arboreal and aquatic mammals).
And it gets even more frightening for the misohomonists: some same-sex pair bonding is based on affection and commitment rather than sex. Some members of same-sex pairs even go so far as to mate to have offspring of their own to raise with their same-sex partners.
The inescapable and devastating conclusion is this: Homosexuality is normal and natural, it is not something to be feared and stamped out or corrected at all.
And not any of the screaming hysteria of the Christo-fanatics or any other religious fanatics will change that one jot, tittle, or iota. I have no doubt that there are those who will maintain, dogmatically, that such behaviour cannot be natural just because it is performed by animals, because they are, after all, only animals, and we are people who "know better". I'll let Dr. Bagemihl have the last word on that note, even though it won't change their minds:
Any careful consideration of the logic behind the equation occurs in animals = natural = acceptable in humans will show, however, that this line of reasoning is flawed. As many people have pointed out, humans engage in a wide variety of behaviors that do not occur in nature, from cooking to writing letters to wearing clothes, and yet we do not condemn these activities as "unnatural" because they are not found among animals.One of the common misconceptions about homosexuality is that it can be cured. That's what ultra-religionists thought about masturbation, too, and they came up with rather bizarre treatments for that. One device to "cure" sexual excitation was a metal sleeve with two electrodes. It was worn over the flaccid penis and came, I suppose, with a battery. One could only touch the electrode in the far end of the sleeve with an erection. The resulting shock was supposed deflate the erection, and probably discourage more of the same through operand conditioning. Some of the cures for homosexuality that were offered by quacks, the misguided, the ignorant, or the self-righteous include:
--Biological Exuberance, page 76
Prostitution therapy Through sex with prostitutes, "inverted men" would experience heterosexual desire.According to an Amnesty International report that was reprinted in The No-Nonsense Guide to Sexual Diversity, in some countries, lebians, gay men, bisexuals, and transgendered people are imprisoned under laws which police the bedroom and criminalize a kiss; they are tortured to extract confessions of "deviance" and raped to "cure" them out of it; they are killed by death squads in societies which view them as disposable garbage.Marriage therapy When presented with this option of courting and marriage, the "deviant" would naturally go straight. Severe studies of abstract studies (like math) would help.
Cauterization New York researcher Dr William Hammond suggested that homosexual patients be "cauterized (at) the nape of the neck and the lower dorsal and lumbar regions" every 10 days.
Castration or ovary removal Removal of the testes to eliminate sex drive in male homosexuals. If homosexuality is hereditary, removal of reproductive organs would provide long-term cure.
Chastity If homosexuality could not be cured, then homosexuals had no moral choice but to remain chaste.
Hypnosis US doctor John D Quackenbos claimed that "unnatual passions for persons of the same sex" could be cured through hypnosis.
Aversion therapy Used duing the first half of the 20th century, this rewarded heterosexual arousal and punished homosexual attraction, often through electric shock.
Psychoanalysis In the 1950s, Dr Edmund Berger spoke of homosexuality as a kind of "psychic masochism" in which the unconscious sets a person on a course of self-destruction. Find the cause, such as resentment toward a domineering mother, and you find the cure.
Radiation treatment X-ray treaments were believed to reduce levels of promisciuous homosexual urges brought on by glandular hyperactivity.
Hormone thereapy Steroid treaments to "butch up" the boys and "femme out" the girls. Prolonged use could cause sterility and cancer.
Lobotomy By cutting nerve fibers in the front of the brain, homosexual drives (and most sexual and emotional reaction capabilities) were eliminated. Lobotomies for homosexuality were performed until the 1950s in the US.
Psycho-religious therapy Religious doctors and therapists combined religious teaching with psychoanalysis to inspire heterosexuality.
Beauty therapy All a butch lesbian needs is a good make-over by a beauty stylist (but not a male homosexual one).
--Don Romesburg, Thirteen Theories to "Cure" homosexuality, and reprinted in The No-Nonsense Guide to Sexual Diversity, pg 107
What none of the pro-homo cure crowd has probably ever stopped to think about is that you cannot cure something unless you first know what causes it, and even then, the root cause might very well be something against which you can do nothing. Dr. Bagemihl describes what seems to be the root cause of homosexuality:
Life on this planet is above all characterized by what Bataille calls "the superabundance of biochemical energy" freely given to it by the sun. The challenge confronting life, then is not scarcity, but excess -- what to do with all this extra energy. Virtually all outpouring of activity, both (pro)creative and destructive -- the development of baroque ornament and pattern (or its distillation into concentrated minmalism), the wanton consumption of animal and plant foods (or mass starvation in their abscence, the extreme elaboration of social systems (encompassing both "complex" and "simple" forms), the florescence of new species and the extinction of others, the cycles of burgeoning and decaying biomass -- all of these can be seen, ultimately, as mechanisms that "use up" or express this excess energy. According to this view, life should in fact be full of "wasteful," "extravagant," and "excessive" activities.In essence: sex happens and is such a driving force for humanity because the sun shines. And this does not necessarily have an evolutionary function or existence as a means to some kind of an end:[...]
In addition to making scientific sense, the concept of Biological Exuberance also makes common sense -- it is intuitively accessible. We can all think of examples of the "extravagance" of nature in our own lives -- maybe it's the overwhelming lushness and beauty of the plants in our garden, the endlessly varied patterns of snowflakes or frost on our window, the infinite and subtle hues of autumn leaves -- or perhaps simply our dog or cat, one of many hundreds of different breeds and hybrids. The examples multiply when we turn our attentions to other areas of the natural world, or to human society. Appreciation of the diversity and "exuberance" of life is, of course, nothing new -- scientists and artists alike have sung its praises throughout history. The brilliance of Bataille's work lies not so much in his recognition of this concept, but in the importance he accords it. Conventional thinking regards the diversity and extravagance of life as the result or by-product of other, greater forces -- evolution, the laws of physics, the progression of history, and so on. For Bataille, this relation is reversed: exuberance is the source and essence of life, from which all other patterns flow.
--Bruce Bagemihl, Biological Exuberance, pg 253, and 254-255, respectively
In a rain forest that contains many hundreds of thousands of species of mammals, birds, insects, plants, and so on, the "purpose" of yet one more kind of beetle may be difficult to see -- except when understood in terms of its contribution to the overall complexity and vitality of the environment. Similarly, the "function" of a particular social or sexual behavior such as homosexual courtship or heterosexual reverse mounting [a female mounting a male from behind] may seem minimal or even nonexistent at the level of a particular species or individual. But its contribution to the overall strength of the system is independent of such "utility" (or lack thereof) and is also independent of the proportion of the population that participates in it. Every individual, every behavior -- whether productive or "counterproductive," comprising 1 percent or 99 percent of the population -- has a part to play. Its role is not in the tapestry of life, but as the tapestry of life: its existence is its "function."This lack of specific cause or any definable function behind homosexuality ties in with another misohomonist myth: that the young and impressionable can be recruited into the lifestyle. This is utterly asinine in light of the fact that nobody knows what causes orientation beyond the general. If you don't know how a process develops, how can you either encourage or discourage the process?
--Bruce Bagemihl, Biological Exuberance, pg 252
And why do we even have orientation? From a strictly scientific point of view, orientation is not rational. We respond with sexual excitation to stimulation of the sensory nerves assigned to alert us to touch. (Not counting "impure" thoughts and spontaneous hard ons.) Every last single one of those nerves is the same as every other. What makes an area of our body more sensitive than another is not a different kind of nerve, but a greater concentration of nerves per square millimeter. There aren't as many nerves on our shoulders, for example, as there are in the glans penis or the clitoris. So: stroke your forearm with your fingertips, then have someone of the opposite sex do it for you, then do it with a pen or pencil. The nerves react to each stimulus regardless of the tool. The nerves of the genitals will react whether the genitals are stimulated by skin or by latex; the sex of the stimulator is irrelevant. So why should we be oriented for preferred partners? In light of these facts, bisexuality should be the norm, and hetero- and homosexuality should be the fringe.
Yet the idea of a same-sex partner makes me squeamish. Go figure.
Dr. Bagemihl has an answer for that question as well, however:
Biological diversity is intrinsically valuable and homosexuality/transgender is one reflection of that diversity.The implication is that orientation and the full range of sexual activities arises as a direct result of species or populations attaining a critical mass. This makes sense, since there is a very clear and present precedent in the field of sociology. The type of society in which we live, semi-nomadic, agragrian, or industrialized, is dependent on the size of the population.
--Bruce Bagemihl, Biological Exuberance, pg 252
Then there's the nonsense about how gay marriage will destroy the institution of marriage or of families. Have any of these idiots looked at the divorce rates lately? What these people just don't get is: How I live my life has no bearing on how you live yours; how you live your life has no bearing on how I live mine. I make my choices for my own welfare and wellbeing and that of my family. It doesn't stop you from doing the same for yourself and your family, even if the choices you make are the opposite of the ones I make. If two homosexuals get married or just have sex, that does not mean that you have to take a same-sex partner too. You will not be under any constraint to divorce your wife just because Heather has two mommies. Hell, just as the indications cited by Dr. Bagemihl that homosexuality helps to ensure a healthier heterosexual culture, there are indications that gay marriage can do the same in human society:
Consider the principal grounds for opposing same-sex marriage, aside from personal animus. I'm avoiding the two most popular, "the Bible says so" and "that's the way it's always been" because the Bible has many proscriptions and prescriptions that we have long since agreed were not compatible with modern civilized conduct. And the tradition argument begs the question. Are we saying that we should continue to discriminate because we always have discriminated?As always, however, the ultra-conservatives simply cannot see any evidence that does not bear out their prejudices. Just as, the story goes, the scientists who looked through Galileo's telescope asserted that that they could not see any bodies around Jupiter, or those that could not believe a lighter object would fall as fast as a heavier one. And this is troublesome for religious fanatics, although they will deny this following point:There are three more solid arguments against same-sex marriage. The first is that it breaks the inherent and fundamental link between marriage and procreation. But this link was broken long ago. Indeed, proof of fertility and willingness to bear children has never been required for marriage license applicants. All societies have recognized childless marriages as marriages.
The second argument against same-sex marriage is that children reared by same-sex parents will be hurt. But the empirical evidence suggests otherwise. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the National Association of Social Workers and other organizations involved in protecting the health of children agree. Children raised by gay or lesbian parents suffer no harm. The evidence is not theoretical. More than a quarter of all households headed by same sex couples already are raising children. Given the evidence that the children suffer no harm in such a household author Jonathan Rauch pointedly asks, "Would these children be better off if their parents remained unmarried?"
The third argument against same sex marriages is that it threatens the family, the bedrock of civilization. Sociologist Stanley Kurtz is one of the most prominent advocates of this position. He maintains that same-sex marriage in Scandinavia has all but destroyed the family. The evidence contradicts him. As Professor Irwin Garfinkel of the Columbia University School of Social Work points out, 45 percent of American children do not spend their entire childhoods in a two-parent household. In Sweden only fifteen percent do.
Conservative gay journalist Andrew Sullivan insists that Denmark's experience proves that same-sex marriage strengthens the institution of marriage. "(D)uring the first six years in which gay marriage was legal the rate of straight marriages rose 10 percent and the rate of straight divorces decreased by 12 percent."
A constitutional amendment might allow us to avoid justifying our prejudice in a formal setting. But isn't a formal setting precisely the one in which prejudices are best aired and examined?
--David Morris, Courting Gay Marriage, 13 May 2004
A lie is defined by Wifred Bion -- that great practioner of psychoanalytic homiltetics -- not as a simple act of deceit but as "a formulation known by the initator to be false, but maintained as a barrier against statements that would otherwise lead to a psychological or emotional upheaval" [...].I contend that ultra-conservatives maintain their lies about homosexuals in an intrisic act of denial, a willful avoidance of psychological or emotional upheaval, and which constituties a violation of the Ninth Commandment (Exodus 20.16): Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.[08] By their own rules, falsely accusing homosexuals of being unfit parents or of not being able to love their partners as much as heterosexuals are expected to, or of maliciously seeking to corrupt children without sufficient hard evidence to back up the accusation -- this constitutes blasphemy; an attack on the authority of God.
--Jerry B Harvey, How Come Every Time I Get Stabbed In The Back My Fingerprints Are On The Knife?, pg 94
And they will be called to task for that on Judgement Day.
FOOTNOTES:
[01] As ten percent of the general population is homosexual, ten percent of the current generation of children will grow up to be homosexual as well, regardless of any effort to "protect" them from homosexuality by denying them knowledge of its existence.
Return to place in main text
[02]To whit: So your saying two women or two men conceived a child? Now who's naive?
I consider this an a posto qualification in an effort to duck responsibility for his misstatement; both of which are perfectly within the character of shortsightedness.
Return to place in main text
[03] Different Drummer: Homosexuality In America
Elaine Landau -1986
ISBN 0-671-55497-2
Dewey # 306.766 L253
Being Homosexual: Gay Men And Their Development
Richard A. Isay, M.D. -1989
ISBN 0-374-11012-3
Dewey # 306.7662 I76
Homosexuality: Opposing Viewpoints
Ed: Mary E. Williams -1999
ISBN 0-7377-0052-1
Dewey # 305.90664/H768O
Not In Front Of The Audience: Homosexuality on Stage
Nicholas de Jongh -1992
ISBN 0-415-03363-2 pbk
0-415-03362-4
Dewey # 822.9109353 D327
Lives of Notable Gay Men and Lesbians: James Baldwin
Randall Kenan -1994
ISBN 0-7910-2301-X
Dewey # 818.5409 B181K
Know About Gays and Lesbians
Margaret O. Hyde and
Elizabeth H. Forsyth, MD. -1994
ISBN 1-56294-298-0
Dewey # 305.90664 H994
The Kinsey Institute New Report On Sex
ISBN 0-312-05268-5
Dewey # 306.7 R372
Return to place in main text
[04] The No-Nonsense Guide to Sexual Diversity
Vanessa Baird -2001
ISBN 1-896357-50-4
Dewey # 306.76 B163N
Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity
Bruce Bagemihl, PhD -1999
ISBN 0-213-19239-8
Dewey # 591.562 B144
Return to place in main text
[05] An orientation of anasexual won't make any difference to fanatics and extremists, of course. The underlying foundation of their intolerance is that the intolerable are: Not One Of Us.
And for the simple-minded: no, the "ana" prefix of negation does not have anything to do with anal.
Return to place in main text
[06] The word 'transsexual' is a composite word constructed from latin root terms, a basic standard of science and medicine, used for the purpose of permitting precise and exact definition.
'trans', which means essentially 'to move across', and 'sex' which defines reproductive physical construction, are brought together to form the complete word "transsexual".
The parts clearly and exactly define the meaning of the term, which is to cross from one physical sex to another.
'Transgender' is a problematic term in that the strict definition of it would suggest changing from one gender to another, and this is paradoxical at best, and nonsensical at worst.
--BLUEPRINT FOR UNDERSTANDING: Detailed Information For Further Education
A recent term in usage is "Transgenderism", essentially an empty word conjured up as a neutral label for any individual not conforming to common social rules of gender expression. The term was created to help unite very disparate individuals under a vague commonality of interest in gender, in order to provide a basis for mutual benefit and support within an often violently antagonistic society.
Transgenderism can refer to those who crossdress, those who are intersexed, those who live in the opposite societal role of their physical sex, those who play with gender expression for any purpose whatsoever, and transsexuals as well. While there is potentially great survival benefit in this mutual association labeled as 'transgenderism', the primary function is social and political, and not clinical, despite the efforts of some to legitimize this essentially meaningless term.
--What Transsexuality Is: Definition, Cause, and History
Sexual Orientation is which sex you find erotically attractive: other (hetero), same (homo), or both (bi). Sexual Identity is how you see yourself physically: male, female, or in between. If someone is born female, but wishes to see their body as male in all respects, their sexual identity is male. It is generally rude to speak of such a person as female, since it denies that person their right to inhabit the social and physical role of their choosing. We refer to such a person as a
transsexual, whether or not they have had any surgery.
--Nancy R. Nangeroni, International Foundation for Gender Education
Return to place in main text
[07] An argument that might be based on Richard Dawkin's Selfish Gene Theory. I don't agree with Selfish Gene thinking because it is reductionist in nature and reductionism offends my philosophies and beliefs. It seems more likely to me that the idea of homosexuality as genetic nonsurvival behavior is put forth out of desperation. A foolish argument if it is; if you're not the one who is homosexual, it is not your genes that are on the line and there is no rational
basis for the contention. Plus, if the argument is founded on selfish gene theory, the misohomonists should actually be promoting homosexuality, as that would lessen the competition they would face for spreading their own genes around.
Return to place in main text
[08] Rendered in the Good News Bible as: Do not accuse anyone falsely.
Return to place in main text
Return to Chronology
25 May 2005
Return to Celebrate Freedom Index