open letters

Does Joe Solmonese Finally Mean Business With Obama?


Does Human Rights Campaign president Joe Solmonese actually — and finally — mean business with President Obama? Or is he just covering his ass amidst allegations he’s only playing softball with the White House? In a lengthy letter to 1600 Pennsylvania, Solmonese publicly addresses Obama and charges him with his misdeeds, particularly when it comes to the Defense Of Marriage Act. Threatened by grassroots activism that’s generating more attention than HRC’s multi-million dollar budget, we have what’s arguably the first time in a long time that HRC grew a pair and targeted the establishment. Which is hard to do, when you yourself are the establishment. Who’s buying?

We’re reprinting below the full letter, dated today. But here’s the gist: The Department of Justice’s DOMA defense has finally angered Solmonese to the point that he’s furious with how Obama is treating the gays. Sure, it could be argued Obama has done nothing from Day 1, and it’s silly that Solmonese is only now making hard demands (previously, he “worked with” the White House on gay rights efforts), but we’re actually enjoying Joe’s invocation of things like “families,” and how the White House’s position on DOMA is horrifying.

What HRC is good at is sicking its robust legal counsel on anything coming out of Washington, including this DOMA brief. That Joe’s minions have actually recognized this DOMA brief flies in the face of our Constitutional rights is, frankly, something we’re comfortable with relying on HRC to do. The action part? Not so much.

But today’s letter is encouraging. Too little too late? No. But this is only Step 1 in forcing the administration to consider our rights, and every penny you’ve donated to HRC

Dear Mr. President:

I have had the privilege of meeting you on several occasions, when visiting the White House in my capacity as president of the Human Rights Campaign, a civil rights organization representing millions of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people across this country. You have welcomed me to the White House to express my community’s views on health care, employment discrimination, hate violence, the need for diversity on the bench, and other pressing issues. Last week, when your administration filed a brief defending the constitutionality of the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act,” I realized that although I and other LGBT leaders have introduced ourselves to you as policy makers, we clearly have not been heard, and seen, as what we also are: human beings whose lives, loves, and families are equal to yours. I know this because this brief would not have seen the light of day if someone in your administration who truly recognized our humanity and equality had weighed in with you.

So on behalf of my organization and millions of LGBT people who are smarting in the aftermath of reading that brief, allow me to reintroduce us. You might have heard of Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon. They waited 55 years for the state of California to recognize their legal right to marry. When the California Supreme Court at last recognized that right, the octogenarians became the first couple to marry. Del died after the couple had been legally married for only two months. And about two months later, their fellow Californians voted for Proposition 8.

Across this country, same-sex couples are living the same lives that Phyllis and Del so powerfully represent, and the same lives as you and your wife and daughters. In over 99% of U.S. counties, we are raising children and trying to save for their educations; we are committing to each other emotionally and financially. We are paying taxes, serving on the PTA, struggling to balance work and family, struggling to pass our values on to our children—through church, extended family, and community. Knowing us for who we are—people and families whose needs and contributions are no different from anyone else’s—destroys the arguments set forth in the government’s brief in Smelt. As you read the rest of what I have to say, please judge the brief’s arguments with this standard: would this argument hold water if you acknowledge that Del and Phyllis have contributed as much to their community as their straight neighbors, and that their family is as worthy of respect as your own?

Reading the brief, one is told again and again that same-sex couples are so unlike different-sex couples that unequal treatment makes sense. But the government doesn’t say what makes us different, or unequal, only that our marriages are “new.” The fact that same-sex couples were denied equal rights until recently does not justify denying them now.

For example, the brief seems to adopt the well-worn argument that excluding same-sex couples from basic protections is somehow good for other married people:

Because all 50 States recognize hetero-sexual marriage, it was reasonable and rational for Congress to maintain its longstanding policy of fostering this traditional and universally- recognized form of marriage.

The government does not state why denying us basic protections promotes anyone else’s marriage, nor why, while our heterosexual neighbors’ marriages should be promoted, our own must be discouraged. In other words, the brief does not even attempt to explain how DOMA is related to any interest, but rather accepts that it is constitutional to attempt to legislate our families out of existence.

The brief characterizes DOMA as “neutral:”

[DOMA amounts to] a cautious policy of federal neutrality towards a new form of marriage.

DOMA is not “neutral” to a federal employee serving in your administration who is denied equal compensation because she cannot cover her same-sex spouse in her health plan. When a woman must choose between her job and caring for her spouse because they are not covered by the FMLA, DOMA is not “neutral.” DOMA is not a “neutral” policy to the thousands of bi-national same-sex couples who have to choose between family and country because they are considered strangers under our immigration laws. It is not a “neutral” policy toward the minor child of a same-sex couple, who is denied thousands of dollars of surviving mother’s or father’s benefits because his parents are not “spouses” under Social Security law.

Exclusion is not neutrality.

Next, the brief indicates that denying gay people our equal rights saves money:

It is therefore permitted to maintain the unique privileges [the government] has afforded to [different-sex marriages] without immediately extending the same privileges, and scarce government resources, to new forms of marriage that States have only recently begun to recognize.

The government goes on to say that DOMA reasonably protects other taxpayers from having to subsidize families like ours. The following excerpt explains:

DOMA maintains federal policies that have long sought to promote the traditional and uniformly-recognized form of marriage, recognizes the right of each State to expand the traditional definition if it so chooses, but declines to obligate federal taxpayers in other States to subsidize a form of marriage that their own states do not recognize.

These arguments completely disregard the fact that LGBT citizens pay taxes ourselves. We contribute into Social Security equally and receive the same statement in the mail every year. But for us, several of the benefits listed in the statement are irrelevant—our spouses and children will never benefit from them. The parent who asserts that her payments into Social Security should ensure her child’s financial future should she die is not seeking a subsidy. The gay White House employee who works as hard as the person in the next office is not seeking a “subsidy” for his partner’s federal health benefits. He is earning the same compensation without receiving it. And the person who cannot even afford to insure her family because the federal government would treat her partner’s benefits as taxable income—she is not seeking a subsidy.

The government again ignores our experiences when it argues that DOMA § 2 does not impair same-sex couples’ right to move freely about our country as other families can:

DOMA does not affect “the right of a citizen of one State to enter and to leave another state, the right to be treated as a welcome visitor rather than an unfriendly alien when temporarily present in the second State.”

This example shows the fallacy of that argument: a same-sex couple and their child drives cross- country for a vacation. On the way, they are in a terrible car accident. One partner is rushed into the ICU while the other, and their child, begs to be let in to see her, presenting the signed power of attorney that they carry wherever they go. They are told that only “family” may enter, and the woman dies alone while her spouse waits outside. This family was not “welcome.”

As a matter of constitutional law, some of this brief does not even make sense:

DOMA does not discriminate against homosexuals in the provision of federal benefits…. Section 3 of DOMA does not distinguish among persons of different sexual orientations, but rather it limits federal benefits to those who have entered into the traditional form of marriage.

In other words, DOMA does not discriminate against gay people, but rather only provides federal benefits to heterosexuals.

I cannot overstate the pain that we feel as human beings and as families when we read an argument, presented in federal court, implying that our own marriages have no more constitutional standing than incestuous ones:

And the courts have widely held that certain marriages, performed elsewhere need not be given effect, because they conflicted with the public policy of the forum. See e.g., Catalano v. Catalano, 170 A.2d 726, 728-29 (Conn. 1961) (marriage of uncle to niece, though valid in Italy under its laws, was not valid in Connecticut because it contravened public policy of th[at] state.”

As an American, a civil rights advocate, and a human being, I hold this administration to a higher standard than this brief. In the course of your campaign, I became convinced—and I still want to believe—that you do, too. I have seen your administration aspire and achieve. Protecting women from employment discrimination. Insuring millions of children. Enabling stem cell research to go forward. These are powerful achievements. And they serve as evidence to me that this brief should not be good enough for you. The question is, Mr. President—do you believe that it’s good enough for us?

If we are your equals, if you recognize that our families live the same, love the same, and contribute as much as yours, then the answer must be no.

We call on you to put your principles into action and send legislation repealing DOMA to Congress.

Sincerely, Joe Solmonese

Get Queerty Daily

Subscribe to Queerty for a daily dose of #politics #barackobama #doma(defenseofmarriageact) stories and more


  • PJ

    Now Obama had to take time from his photo-ops to read this letter before he throws it in the trash. Obama has proven to us that he is a politician. He is the same kind of politician that he was claiming to be different from. Obama’s idea of change? Status quo.

  • sarah

    Well said. I think that’s the hardest ball we can throw right now.

    translation: protesting will not do shit for our cause.

  • Rick Murray

    Well written, but did he actually send it to President Obama?

  • John K.

    @sarah: Maybe if we start burning shit down, it will.

  • galefan2004

    Don’t suddenly put a lot of faith in HRC. After the horribly derogatory legal brief in defense of DOMA, if HRC didn’t do something they would have lost a great deal of support. HRC has gotten so big that it has to keep working the political game to pay its bills. On the other hand, its pretty hard to keep arguing that Obama is just putting off the cause of gay and lesbian rights in favor of other priorities when he allows something as hateful as that brief to be presented.

  • DCRocket

    Its important to remember that it is Pride season and HRC will be at Prides accross the country trying to raise money. Having a copy of this letter will convice those who haven’t been following this mess that HRC is holding the Administration accountable. Pam’s House Blend asks a very important question.

    “Sending [DOMA repeal legislation] passively up to the Hill’s jellyfish leadership is akin to not sending it at all.

    Also, what happens next if the President thumbs his nose at this letter? The gauntlet has been thrown down with an appeal to decency. Is the Obama administration going to toss this in the ashcan (hello, Rahm)? This is the dilemma that HRC faces as our advocacy group on the Hill. Now the WH knows HRC is angry, will it call a bluff of some kind, as in “you have nowhere else to go”?

    Seriously, I’m glad this letter is finally heading to the President, but considering the callous way our issues have been treated — by Obama’s silence and the evasive contempt of Robert Gibbs, it’s highly likely that the response will be silence or, humorously (NOT), telling us that they “feel for us” and again toss out “we had to do it” and try to take our eye off of the DOMA ball with the acceleration of hate crimes legislation. There needs to be a plan to follow up any response to the WH that doesn’t look like a retreat or a whimper.”

  • Prof. Donald Gaudard

    Many people are under the impression that Obama and his Department of Justice has to defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) because it is the law. That is just plain wrong. See the following memo, written in 1994 by the White House Legal Counsel that asserts that the President does NOT have to defend laws which are, in his opinion, unconstitutional.

    The memo cites US Supreme Court decisions which have held the same thing: Presidents do NOT have to defend laws they think are unconstitutional. In fact, Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton all refused to defend laws they felt were unconstitutional, so this is not a novel concept.

    It’s not that Obama HAS to defend DOMA; it’s that he CHOOSES to defend DOMA.

    Professor of Law Emeritus Donald W. Gaudard

  • Chapeau

    O great .. Solomenese wrote another strongly worded letter … *Stretch *

    Big freak’n deal.

    How ’bout a call to action – the tactics used by the Obama DOJ are tantamount to fighting words and I for one am no longer feeling betrayed — I’ve moved on to being highly PISSED OFF !

  • InExile

    Possibly the conversation???

    Joe on the telephone: I’m sending you a letter but pay no attention, I need it for fund raising.

    BO: That’s OK Joe, we all need cover. Next term, I’ll see what I can do for your people. Keep in mind I am busy with more important issues.

  • The Gay Numbers


    Why are not blogs such as yours (Pam’s House of blend, Towleroad, afterleton) banning togehter to promote activism? I don’t mean just doing stories, but doing what daily kos and other places do with Act Blue? Why are you not a part of such a movment? Just curious because you have a great platform. Pointing out the misdeeds is cool,b ut it would be nice to have an aparatus to do something about it.

  • TANK

    Obama is a glorified community organizer. He doesn’t know what he’s doing, and is a politician before a person. This letter was well written.

  • InExile

    @TANK: Yes, I agree!

  • DeAnimator

    Call me when the HRC grows some ACTUAL eggs and DOES something. My grandparents can write a strongly worded letter.

  • D-Sun

    I hope he used red text. And a nice, bold font. Impact, perhaps.

  • StillWaiting

    At least it did something else than smilling…

  • BrianZ

    It was a well written, thoughtful letter. It’s about got-damned time. If they stay on the offensive, HRC just _might_ win back my support.

  • Michael @

    Whatever HRC’s history, Solmonese’s letter is near perfect. BRAVO!

    Wasting ANY time dissing them or him is EXACTLY the kind of thing Obama Inc. giggles about when THEY should be our ONLY target right now…including their House Faggots like John Berry.

    It would be even better if HRC used some of their $$ millions to pay for a series of nationwide full page newspaper ads and 30 second TV ads more simply saying the same things, and also about O Inc’s hideous DADT defense in court just a few days before that most seem to have already forgotten.

    Way past time to get Middle America who support us by majorities in everything but “marriage” to get involved. And, remember, this lawsuit was ONLY about what Obama promised to fight for: mutual recognition between states of legal gay unions and federal benefits NOT what such unions are called.

    Explain to nongay Americans how much THEIR and their family’s personal safety is endangered by DADT discharges and DEMAND O freeze them until Congress acts [which Harry Reid just revealed he has no intention of acting on…AND bizarrely passed the buck back to Obama]!

    FURTHER, EVERY remaining Stonewall 40 LGBT Pride event should be turned into a SHAME OBAMA & CONGRESS! event.

    The dates and times and places are already set and the gigantic crowds are already planning on being there AND mainstream media in NY and SF, etc., will definitely be covering them.

    HOW I would luv for America to turn on their TVs and hear: “Today’s celebration of the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall Riots turned into a huge protest by tens of thousands who accuse President Obama of betraying his campaign promises and going out of his way to support homophobic laws.”

    I STILL don’t get why DC revelers didn’t show their PRIDE by booing First Faggot John Berry off their stage yesterday, but the BIGGEST events are yet to come.

    Lt. Dan Choi is one of the grand marshals in SF’s parade and you KNOW he’s going to have some choice words when he gets to the microphone!!!! And Cleve Jones and Dustin Lance Black will be speaking at NY Pride so I’m optimistic, but


    If not 40 years after Stonewall….when?


  • galefan2004

    @DCRocket: I really don’t see Obama thumbing his nose at this letter. What we will get from Obama is a half-hearted apology that in no way encompasses any support of the gay community or admits any wrong doing on part of the DOJ. However, it will be well received by the Obama first crowd simply because he used the word gay.

  • galefan2004

    @Michael @ Obama has 75% of voters in favor of him in this country. Depending on the issue, the LGBT community has anywhere from 45-68% in favor of our rights. Honestly, if we take Obama on head on, its not going to be Obama that suffers from it.

  • Michael @


    That’s why DADT should be the leading issue [It could be a series of ads each focusing on a different gay rights issue.]

    In fact, one poll shows 81% of the public supporting its repeal, and the latest one showing that a majority of REPUBLICANS do.

    The “steak” is not the issue, it’s the “sizzle.” There are SO many ways to make the easily understood case that DADT threatens national security, and they should start with the example of the terrorist message that was intercepted on September 10, 2001, but not interpreted for lack of translaters until AFTER 3000 Americans had been murdered to read “Tomorrow is zero hour.” Illustrate with pix of Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach, Dan Choi, and others etc.

    AND as y’all will soon read, in a move that totally boggles my mind and is going to cause the NEXT big emotional explosion and embarrassment inside the White House, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has just told the Advocate that HE believes Obama should use his “administrative” powers to freeze discharges some way!!!!!


  • BradK

    @Michael @ …Harry Reid has just told the Advocate that HE believes Obama should use his “administrative” powers to freeze discharges some way

    So in other words, Who’s On First? Or, The Buck Stops Absoblutely No Fucking Where.

    p.s. Nice graphic earlier — I did that!

  • Michael @


    Which one? In either case, great job!

    And those screams you hear are coming from the White House basement where Reid is being Kool Aid boarded.

  • galefan2004

    I completely agree with you on DADT. The military is not an cohesive place with the policy of removing those that dare to be open and honest. I also believe Obama should be taken to task. I must have drank to much of the Bush cool-aide because I am just now getting over the “fear in politics” approach that predominated most of my life during the last 8 years.

  • Mike Barton

    This sounds like one of those letters someone would write to tell someone how they really feel about them, like a current or ex-boy/girlfriend or a boss, that quickly gets deleted never to see the light of day.

  • hand

    @galefan2004: uh no. reverse those numbers. DADT has over 70% approval rating, and obama is hovering around 50%

  • hand

    @hand: er, DADT is 69%, and Obama is 61%. so I was off. whoops sorry.

  • galefan2004

    @hand: Not as off as I was. Looks like Mr. Obama has taken a nose dive in the polls.

  • bostoned

    Oh my god, stop with the crap like this was “a thoughtful letter” and “well written”. It didn’t express any anger and that pisses me off!

  • BradK

    @bostoned: Agreed, though you have to handicap for the source. The HRC is nothing but an ass-kissing, celebrity awarding, brunch club for Guppies — wholly owned and controlled by the DNC.

    For their highly overpaid mouthpiece to pen a letter even vaguely critical of His Majesty is not insignificant. Though agreed, it’s not much, we weren’t expecting much. What was the old SNL skit, Diminished Expectations?

  • bostoned

    @BradK: Diminished Expectations? Diminished? This letter will have absolute zero impact on Obama. It was a complete waste of time and will just make the President chuckle.

    Now, to go completely the opposite way, is it possible this brief was done to stimulate a grass-roots response that will result in DOMA’s repeal from some other angle?

  • BradK

    @bostoned: I was referring to the expectations of the HRC and any real effort put forth….and put forth with any verve or sincerity. “Oh, gee. Thanks Mr. President for mentioning us very briefly in your speech. And not running us down with you motorcade. You are truly so awesome!”

    I honestly don’t what what The Big Plan is. Remember that we weren’t included in the secret. Can’t you just picture a room in the White House basement with The Messiah, our boy Joe the House Homo, and Dr. Evil with his pinky extended, “I have an evil plan”?

    And for this we’re expected to whip out the AmEx cards and give ’till it hurts?

    I think the most likely outcome is that the angry hordes are going to grow more angry by the day. And more impatient with the likes of HRC and their overlords at the DNC. Personally, I’m closely watching the Olsen/Boies suit.

    Then again living in CA among the post-apocalyptic PropH8 ruins, things are a bit more glum and restless than in can’t-get-enough-of-those-gheys! New England. Consequently, it could become much more regional.

    All eyes on October 11th though!

  • bostoned

    @BradK: Oh what is October 11th? Your birthday or something? Or something in CA that I’m not familiar with?

  • BradK

    @bostoned: Cleve Jones is trying to pull together a March On Washington:

    But there’s not a universal consensus on how effective it would be, or how big. I think it’d be a chance for national unity though. After all the Prides in June, things sort of die out (unless your on the Circuit Calendar — oooh! Black and Blue!)

    And yes, the good lord made me on that day but I won’t tell you when. Then they decided to honor me with an official holiday. Does this qualify me for a future shot at The Messiah Of The United States (MOTUS)? I can even produce a real birth certificate.

  • SM

    You all sure do put the whole equality movement on just one man. Obama is not God. If he had legislation sent through the House and Sentate this week on DOMA would it pass or flop like Clinton?

    Maybe you all should stop bashing him and do some of the work YOURSELVES educating people and working on your congress people. When legislation hits the Senate you all need it to pass and Obama is not voting on it.

  • bostoned

    @SM: That brief is hardly the equivalent of not sending legislation repealing DOMA.

  • BradK

    @SM: No, he’s not “God”. But he did campaign as The Messiah and sure is enjoying basking in the warmth of that media-bestowed halo.

    The problem with running as The Messiah is that if you win, sooner or later you have to start producing miracles.

    Sorry SM, but a heart-shaped clock, a diploma, and a badge of courage ain’t gonna cut it this time. We want the Ruby Slippers and we want them now. FFS, they’ve been on layaway for 40 fucking years and were paid off long ago!

  • SM


    Wow Brad K….I’m not even gay and I supported Obama and I supported No On Prop 8.

    I love in Orange County California and I campaigned for No On Prop 8 where it COUNTED and the lazy gays stayed up in West Hollywood and blew it off.

    I campaigned for No On Prop 8 until the late hours on November 3…I could have chosen to work for Obama. I’ll remmber your attitude next time I have that choice.

    Grow the fuck up…you just might reach equality faster..oh and tell the gays to stop being so goddamn lazy if they want straight people to be convinced their civil rights are important to them.

  • BradK

    @SM: And we thank you for your support.

  • bostoned

    @SM: Oh wait, now we have to *earn* your support of our civil rights? Don’t get me wrong, I appreciate your support of “our” rights, but either you believe it or you don’t. BradK is simply saying “it’s time”.

  • Bill Perdue

    Joe Solmonese didn’t exactly demand anything. He pleaded. He wheedled.

    And he probably only said anything at all because contributions to HRC are way down.

    This is not exactly a Tom Paine or a Benjamin Franklin here.

    Solmonese forgot to mention that Obama is a bigot for opposing same sex marriage or point out his role in defeating our chances for SSM last November in a crass attempt to bring out the bigot vote on his side. Obama out-Roved Rove.

    Instead Solmonese explains, in terms any Constitutional lawyer can understand, what’s wrong with bigotry. As if Obama didn’t already know that and hadn’t already dismissed it out of hand in order to pander to bigots. Donnie McKlurkin, Rich Warren, Josh Dubois, Joe Biden, Leah Dauthtry, etc.

    Solmonese doesn’t accuse him of stalling on repeal of DADT, ENDA and the repeal of DOMA. Instead Joe appears more than a little naive trying to appeal to Obama as a decent human being who should be respectful of our rights. That’s just silly. Obama, like Bush and Clinton before him, is a sleazy political hustler who’ll betray anyone if it gets him votes. “gawd’s in the mix.”

    The letter does one good thing. It asks him to keep his promise and repeal DOMA. Fat chance.

    With Democrats like these who needs Republicans. I mean, really, what’s the difference?

  • michael

    I have been no fan of the HRC and seen it as basically a milk toast operation. But its not to late for it to redeem itself and this is a good start. We have got to start raising holy hell about our rights. And I say everyone do what they feel led to do. If you feel like protesting, raising holy hell, then do so. If its with your checkbook then start writing. But do something! Don’t let anyone gay or straight tell you what your role is, cause as long as your following your passion and your heart the universe will show you what that is. It is time for our history to make a sweeping and dramatic change and nobody is going to give it to us, we have seen that with Obama. I am not an Obama hater but its obvious that when it comes to gay rights he is all over the place. The words that come out his mouth is a mind fuck. I don’t know whats going on with him
    but I tell you that he is not going to make it to a second term. There are a lot of folks disappointed in him for a lot of different reasons. Not just gay. So we better act now and act hard.

  • Adam

    It’s also time that we stop putting all of our faith into one leader or one or organization. It’s time we do something as individuals! I know many posting here are likely active in pressing their rights, but many gays and lesbians are not! They hide in the bars or their homes, never coming out to their families. Change starts at home – not in Washington.

  • John

    I’m hopeful that Joe Solmonese’s letter may be more impactful on Obama precisely because HRC (unlike others) didn’t immediately jump Obama’s sh*t when he didn’t do everything we wanted immediately. HRC gave him the benefit of the doubt and showed some patience. But, it has now sent a clear message that our community’s patience is at an end.

    I think the letter appropriately describes our community’s frustration and the fundamental unfairness of the brief. It then gives Obama a way out – it’s a piece of political persuasion at its best. This is what HRC excels at – being the “adult” voice of the LGBT community. When HRC reacts like this, it’s a clear sign to Obama and the Democratic leadership that excuses no longer work.

    But, a lot of folks on here and elsewhere have hit on exactly the best way to show our anger with the direction things have gone – we don’t donate a cent to national Democratic candidates until things change. Money speaks louder than anything else, and the free ride of LGBT money is over. That may make more of a difference than anything in this fight!

  • Ted B. (Charging Rhino)

    So what? Letters to POTUS are read and screened by the staff. The White House gets 40,000 letters every business day.

    “Oh, Mr. Rahm. Joe Salmonese of HRC sent a stiffly-worded letter over the lack of progress.”
    “Joe Salmonese of the HRC.”
    “Of what?”
    “Human Rights Campaign,…the gay lobby?”
    “Oh, them…”
    “Should I pass it along to the President?”
    “Why? If I get a moment I mention it at the briefing later today. …On second thought, just send back the usual form-letter with a copy to the DNC. Tell the DNC the ATM’s squeaking, go make nice words to the Gays…”

  • Cam

    Enough with telling Obama how much pain this causes us. How about a letter that says “Keep your promises”?

  • jose

    joe solmonese a soon as he gets an invitation for a fabulous cocktail party in the white house he’ll forget what happen!

  • Cam



Comments are closed.