Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Zenlitened

(9,488 posts)
13. You are incorrect in suggesting marriage's societal purpose has been diminished.
Sat Jul 4, 2015, 09:01 PM
Jul 2015

Yes, Justice Kennedy spoke at length about the personally fulfilling aspects of marriage. And rightly so.

But he also specifically addressed its societal purpose and benefit. Both of which are enhanced by acknowledging gay and lesbian couples' right to legally wed.

From pages 16 and 17 of Kennedy's opinion:

... (J)ust as a couple vows to support each other, so does society pledge to support the couple, offering symbolic recognition and material benefits to protect and nourish the union...

(The States) ... have throughout our history made marriage the basis for an expanding list of governmental rights, bene- fits, and responsibilities. These aspects of marital status include: taxation; inheritance and property rights; rules of intestate succession; spousal privilege in the law of evi- dence; hospital access; medical decisionmaking authority; adoption rights; the rights and benefits of survivors; birth and death certificates; professional ethics rules; campaign finance restrictions; workers’ compensation benefits; health insurance; and child custody, support, and visita- tion rules...

...Valid marriage under state law is also a significant status for over a thousand provisions of federal law... The States have contributed to the fundamental character of the marriage right by placing that institution at the center of so many facets of the legal and social order...


By all means, let's have the conversation about plural marriage. But let's do so honestly, without suggesting the institution has now been diminished somehow.

The exact opposite is true: The institution of marriage is only strengthened, our society is only strengthened, when we affirm gay and lesbian couples' right to legally wed.
Are you speaking about women with plural marriages with men? Thinkingabout Jul 2015 #1
Polyandry and polygamy are being done serially in the larger culture Warpy Jul 2015 #85
Warren Jeffs ran a cult similar to the Branch Davidian. The cults like Jeffs controlled are nothing Thinkingabout Jul 2015 #96
Interesting perspective Wella Jul 2015 #115
Agreed. Marriage should be about love, not a tool to enforce societal expectations LittleBlue Jul 2015 #2
Er, I think you are ignoring a big chunk of America. asturias31 Jul 2015 #136
Don't care. All voluntary interactions should be free. TampaAnimusVortex Jul 2015 #294
why should marriage be about "love"? People marry for all kinds of reasons. KittyWampus Jul 2015 #212
We have an astronomical divorce rate, people running around on their 3rd and 4th marriages LittleBlue Jul 2015 #227
actually, the claim about love is no longer credible. You think people who get divorced didn't love KittyWampus Jul 2015 #245
Your argument makes no sense. Why would divorce invalidate their love? LittleBlue Jul 2015 #256
Except we have seen what happens in polygamous cultures mythology Jul 2015 #3
That's when polygamy is the norm Ex Lurker Jul 2015 #8
Wrong gollygee Jul 2015 #9
The anti gay marriage side argues that it hurts society Ex Lurker Jul 2015 #11
Specific people are tangibly hurt by polygamy gollygee Jul 2015 #12
Specific people are tangibly hurt by monogamy Igel Jul 2015 #126
Every place where polygamy is practiced, it is overwhelmingly hurtful gollygee Jul 2015 #189
Do you understand how polyamory is practiced in the US and that this would be Wella Jul 2015 #283
You don't know that gollygee Jul 2015 #290
I do know that the alternative model will be what appears in the media Wella Jul 2015 #292
It would be used mostly to enslave women, just like it's used everyplace it exists. gollygee Jul 2015 #293
How do you know that? Wella Jul 2015 #295
Poygamy has tended to mean male dominated societies where women are property Agnosticsherbet Jul 2015 #4
Monogamy has tended to mean male dominated societies where women are property Igel Jul 2015 #127
So why let men keep a harem? Agnosticsherbet Jul 2015 #234
Discrimination against gay people is wrong; THAT closeupready Jul 2015 #5
Actually, the polyamorous trio I knew were three gay women Wella Jul 2015 #159
What about this decision suggests marriage between more than 2 persons must be required by a State? elleng Jul 2015 #6
Sotomayor suggested it that polygamy could be a result during the Prop 8 hearings. Wella Jul 2015 #14
Not in THIS decision, right? elleng Jul 2015 #20
The issue remains the same. Sotomayor basically said if marriage is a fundamental right... Wella Jul 2015 #24
No, she gave Olson a softball question that he CRUSHED geek tragedy Jul 2015 #125
He didn't crush it, and the question remains open. Wella Jul 2015 #128
These two issues are not equivalent. gollygee Jul 2015 #7
Legally, the two issues may both revolve around civil rights and discrimination Wella Jul 2015 #25
No one is being discriminated against by the government's sanction of 2-person marriages. pnwmom Jul 2015 #139
Says you! Wella Jul 2015 #141
And the vast majority of other Americans. I'm not saying the law could never change, no matter what. pnwmom Jul 2015 #144
The vast majority of Americans were opposed to gay marriage too, until recently Wella Jul 2015 #147
No, it's the same as telling a gay man he can only legally marry 1 gay man, not several. pnwmom Jul 2015 #149
No, you're telling someone who deeply loves two people and wants legal recognition Wella Jul 2015 #152
By your argument, a person who deeply loves 100 people should be able to pnwmom Jul 2015 #154
That is a problem, yes Wella Jul 2015 #156
You should start holding plural parades I guess. JoePhilly Jul 2015 #10
ding ding Joe wins the thread! elehhhhna Jul 2015 #18
I imagine there will be events if the idea really takes hold Wella Jul 2015 #26
I'll take my 4 wives!!!! JoePhilly Jul 2015 #222
+1000 smirkymonkey Jul 2015 #31
STOP IT JOEPHILLY Skittles Jul 2015 #133
You are incorrect in suggesting marriage's societal purpose has been diminished. Zenlitened Jul 2015 #13
Benefits to the individual have caused a change in marriage's social purpose. Wella Jul 2015 #15
The social purpose of marriage has NOT been redefined. It has been reaffirmed. Zenlitened Jul 2015 #16
It is disingenous and deceitful to use the same language for different things Wella Jul 2015 #17
Your response was alerted on. See below. I was number 7 guillaumeb Jul 2015 #27
What is the purpose of alerting on my post? Just because I disagree with you that the social Wella Jul 2015 #32
I served on the jury. I did not alert on you. guillaumeb Jul 2015 #36
Please accept my apology. I confused your comments with others. Wella Jul 2015 #40
Accepted, of course. I agree with your original post. Well said. eom guillaumeb Jul 2015 #44
Thank you. Wella Jul 2015 #48
Another silly waste of time... joeybee12 Jul 2015 #232
a well reasoned and thoughtful criticism, to be sure. guillaumeb Jul 2015 #268
Sorry, that is just plain wrong. Zenlitened Jul 2015 #55
I didn't say "marriage" was redefined. I said that society has redefined the purpose of marriage Wella Jul 2015 #121
Odd. I don't see any 'redefinition'. To me marriage has always been about DebJ Jul 2015 #220
I'm not talking about your personal subjective view--there are 7 billion of those, quite literally Wella Jul 2015 #254
Then why have there always been marriages of older people that would not produce children? DebJ Jul 2015 #267
They were always the exception and not the rule Wella Jul 2015 #278
You didn't answer my question. If the purpose of marriage is solely to procreate and DebJ Jul 2015 #297
You need to get your argument straight. So to speak. Zenlitened Jul 2015 #230
+1000 smirkymonkey Jul 2015 #28
Me too. Jamastiene Jul 2015 #118
If you actually read some of my posts through this thread, you'd see that you're wrong Wella Jul 2015 #129
That would be a waste of time. JTFrog Jul 2015 #248
legal complications 6chars Jul 2015 #151
I agree, plural marriage seems more complicated in terms of new laws. Zenlitened Jul 2015 #228
Give it up. romanic Jul 2015 #19
K&R smirkymonkey Jul 2015 #30
There are people in plural relationships on this board. Are they all "perverts"? Wella Jul 2015 #34
I'll use whatever word I want to use. romanic Jul 2015 #109
I've known at least one poly situation and they were not perverts Wella Jul 2015 #112
I have several friends in poly relationships which are long term Mojorabbit Jul 2015 #123
I think you have to know people to understand the poly thing Wella Jul 2015 #130
I think some people on this board need to get out more laundry_queen Jul 2015 #236
Thank you. Wella Jul 2015 #242
You think it's okay to call people perverts whose lifestyle you don't like? Democat Jul 2015 #206
Seriously oberliner Jul 2015 #229
This is a cancervative talking point. xfundy Jul 2015 #21
Actually it's not: toasters do not have recognized civil rights. Wella Jul 2015 #41
When can I expect an invitation Aerows Jul 2015 #22
Have you ever known anyone in a polyamorous relationship? Wella Jul 2015 #35
Funny you should ask that! Aerows Jul 2015 #42
So your answer is no, you've never known anyone in a polyamorous relationship. Wella Jul 2015 #45
Please stop. DeadLetterOffice Jul 2015 #53
This message was self-deleted by its author Aerows Jul 2015 #57
Not worth replying to. Aerows Jul 2015 #59
I am NOT one of those faces. DeadLetterOffice Jul 2015 #64
Have a great 4th of July! n/t Aerows Jul 2015 #67
You too. DeadLetterOffice Jul 2015 #70
My Dad's advice Aerows Jul 2015 #79
They are not prevented from making a personal commitment to do so. They are only prevented pnwmom Jul 2015 #153
No. They are prevented from having their committment legally recognized. Wella Jul 2015 #288
Yes, funny how that works! smirkymonkey Jul 2015 #217
Unrec nt LostOne4Ever Jul 2015 #23
Yes, and in uncharted waters with regard to MAN-TURTLE MARRIAGE TOOOOOOOO~!!!!!!!!! MADem Jul 2015 #29
Turtles do not have recognized civil rights. Wella Jul 2015 #43
You really should take your right wing tropes elsewhere--this one is painfully obvious. MADem Jul 2015 #51
You brought up a turtle; I told you a turtle did not have civil rights. Wella Jul 2015 #54
I consider your source(s), which are fonts of anti-Democratic invective on a routine basis. nt MADem Jul 2015 #58
What sources? Wella Jul 2015 #65
Yeah, out of your own clever font of ideas. Mmmm hmmm! MADem Jul 2015 #68
Yes, my ideas. They are logical ones based on the legal theory of marriage as a civil right. Wella Jul 2015 #75
Sure, whatever you say--it's just a COINCIDENCE that right wing websites say the very same thing!!!! MADem Jul 2015 #84
The blog you quoted makes a poor (and garbled) argument. Wella Jul 2015 #87
3 times you've linked to that, but it doesn't say that there; it's from a RW website muriel_volestrangler Jul 2015 #165
I have given the link and it's from NBC. I don't know why you keep trying to lie about my "sources" Wella Jul 2015 #166
No, it's not from NBC. You can go and read the fucking thing at both links. muriel_volestrangler Jul 2015 #176
The link I had was from NBC. Sotomayor's quote was all over the place: Wella Jul 2015 #181
"Sotomayor interrupted the presentation of anti-Prop 8 litigator Theodore Olson ..." muriel_volestrangler Jul 2015 #203
Actually, you missed some sources of that string of words Wella Jul 2015 #205
And some other sources of that string: Wella Jul 2015 #211
So you now give the link I gave in #165; a 2012 pdf that doesn't use it; 'opinion-conservative' muriel_volestrangler Jul 2015 #214
And 3 times the link has been from NBC. My newest one is from Slate: Wella Jul 2015 #168
Thank YOU! smirkymonkey Jul 2015 #46
This wingnut argument does not belong at DU. It's offensive and obvious. MADem Jul 2015 #56
Figures. The trolls are outing themselves. smirkymonkey Jul 2015 #63
Can you actually argue an issue or do you just smear people? Wella Jul 2015 #110
I'm not smearing--I've provided facts. You're just parroting rightwing memes, and I've linked to MADem Jul 2015 #117
No you haven't. Not one fact, not one stitch of proof. Wella Jul 2015 #142
Well, he did say them. This isn't about closed minds--this is about your deployment MADem Jul 2015 #160
Logic is logic; it either works or it doesn't. Wella Jul 2015 #161
This isn't about smearing people--it's about pointing out ideas that have long been discredited and MADem Jul 2015 #164
You are so hell bent on smearing me that you're missing the liberal sources with the same info: Wella Jul 2015 #167
You keep repeating the word "smearing" as though repetition will make your argument fly--it won't. MADem Jul 2015 #169
You're the one whose repeating the same smear over and over Wella Jul 2015 #171
I have provided you links to prove what I've said. You reply by falsely calling my linked proof MADem Jul 2015 #172
You've "provided links" to sites I've never used nor seen. That's not proof, that's a smear tactic. Wella Jul 2015 #174
The idea--in case you're unclear--is for you to READ THEM so you can see where your rightwing MADem Jul 2015 #177
The idea is for you--in case you're unclear--is to look at the logic of the argument itself Wella Jul 2015 #182
Your logic--as I and others have pointed out, is failed and poor. nt MADem Jul 2015 #186
My mother always said to consider the source. Wella Jul 2015 #188
Imitation IS the sincerest form of flattery--but I am most certainly not your mother. nt MADem Jul 2015 #192
Are you in a poly relationship? smirkymonkey Jul 2015 #218
John Roberts is not a liberal ... GeorgeGist Jul 2015 #247
He's the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. I take him more seriously than a politician. Wella Jul 2015 #250
Actually, you are claiming things that don't exist... joeybee12 Jul 2015 #233
It has been redefined througout the 20th century. Read the OP Wella Jul 2015 #285
Two things, first no, it really does not. Second, where the fuck is this alleged mass of group Bluenorthwest Jul 2015 #33
... DemocratSinceBirth Jul 2015 #37
Can you show me logically why it does not? Wella Jul 2015 #38
It's your bogus assertion. Back it up. I'm not here to think for you, chum. First, you have to Bluenorthwest Jul 2015 #47
I did back up my assertion. You have yet to back up your objection. Wella Jul 2015 #50
One is not equal to two muriel_volestrangler Jul 2015 #163
But there is not a fundamentai different in the civil right to marriage in each person Wella Jul 2015 #170
Yes, there is a fundamental difference. muriel_volestrangler Jul 2015 #180
Legally, corporations are people. Wella Jul 2015 #183
Please consider the idea... DeadLetterOffice Jul 2015 #49
One could argue that in the situation you describe Wella Jul 2015 #61
The literature suggests some people are born DemocratSinceBirth Jul 2015 #71
I don't, actually, have any lit about it either way DeadLetterOffice Jul 2015 #81
That's the polygamy community as it is known in the US. Show me this polyamory, group marriage Bluenorthwest Jul 2015 #97
It is people I know actually. DeadLetterOffice Jul 2015 #99
+1000--most notably your summation, there. MADem Jul 2015 #178
With all due respect jberryhill Jul 2015 #39
I swear Aerows Jul 2015 #52
Neither dogs nor toasters have a civil right to marry. Wella Jul 2015 #158
No shit--and by their words we shall know them! nt MADem Jul 2015 #62
Your words make it very clear that you don't understand the issue Wella Jul 2015 #83
I understand "the issue" quite well--and I understand where you got your "argument"--even if you MADem Jul 2015 #86
I've read your poorly argued blog link. Wella Jul 2015 #88
I've offered several links in this thread, and if you read them, you'd have slinked away by now. MADem Jul 2015 #179
There is no need to slink away from poor logic. Wella Jul 2015 #184
Obviously, you're standing by your poor logic--but you really SHOULD slink from it. MADem Jul 2015 #185
Imitation (even poorly done) is the sincerest form of flattery Wella Jul 2015 #187
Ah, resorting to cheap and childish insult so soon? MADem Jul 2015 #190
Have you learned what a fact is yet? (Not an insult: a genuine question.) Wella Jul 2015 #194
You're the only one here tossing "opinion"--and it's an ugly one you have, too. MADem Jul 2015 #196
Actually, this thread is much better thought out than most others Wella Jul 2015 #66
I've known all kinds of people jberryhill Jul 2015 #73
Equal protection can be extended to plural marriage through a civil rights argument Wella Jul 2015 #78
isn't is the same argument used by the nra? restorefreedom Jul 2015 #60
It is the marriage equality movement that argued the civil/fundamental right aspect Wella Jul 2015 #69
i am not even remotely comparing gun carnage restorefreedom Jul 2015 #77
Of course the government can place limitation with a "compelling state interest" Wella Jul 2015 #82
Because this has happened in every country that's legalized same sex marriage? herding cats Jul 2015 #72
It's a horseshit argument Aerows Jul 2015 #89
It's a logical argument Wella Jul 2015 #95
It's legal BS and they know it. herding cats Jul 2015 #100
That's all it is Aerows Jul 2015 #101
That's what it is in it's whole, but for a tiny fringe it's a pretend window. herding cats Jul 2015 #107
At the risk of sounding insensitive Wella Jul 2015 #157
Your perspective is a bit narrow Wella Jul 2015 #155
This message was self-deleted by its author Skittles Jul 2015 #135
Other nations have different notions of civil rights and of the Wella Jul 2015 #90
Good luck. herding cats Jul 2015 #94
I don't think it will happen overnight, certainly. Wella Jul 2015 #98
You're talking about longer than I've been alive. herding cats Jul 2015 #103
Thanks for making me feel really old. :) Wella Jul 2015 #108
That wasn't my intention! herding cats Jul 2015 #116
LOL! (That's ok.) :) Wella Jul 2015 #120
Well, I hope you're not a betting woman. herding cats Jul 2015 #122
I'm not fond of losing a bet, but I think I will win this one Wella Jul 2015 #134
You're planning a PR program to tell women they're wrong? muriel_volestrangler Jul 2015 #173
No, the plan is a PR program to promote the idea the poly relationships are not always oppressive Wella Jul 2015 #175
Where are you going to get the money and activists for this fight? DemocratSinceBirth Jul 2015 #216
Polymarriage is where gay marriage was 50 years ago. Wella Jul 2015 #258
There were famous out gays who helped to legitimize marriage equality... DemocratSinceBirth Jul 2015 #263
Not in the early 1980s. The late 90s and 00's, sure. Wella Jul 2015 #271
It's about freedom. BKH70041 Jul 2015 #74
The underpinning of the SCOTUS decision is marriage as a civil right Wella Jul 2015 #92
That being able to marry the person you love is a civil right gollygee Jul 2015 #191
What if you love multiple people? Wella Jul 2015 #193
The SCOTUS isn't going to go their way. gollygee Jul 2015 #195
What societal harm do you see in polyamory? Wella Jul 2015 #197
The evidence is in the reality of how it works everywhere it's practiced gollygee Jul 2015 #199
Up until recently, women were treated like second class citizen in monogamous cultures Wella Jul 2015 #201
That isn't so recent that it will be interesting to the scotus gollygee Jul 2015 #202
We still have domestic violence, we still have a pay gap, we still have street harassment Wella Jul 2015 #207
This message was self-deleted by its author herding cats Jul 2015 #76
Are you a racist? nt Hutzpa Jul 2015 #80
Wrong... ms liberty Jul 2015 #91
What you say is true, but none of it precludes plural marriage Wella Jul 2015 #93
You appear to have ignored my last sentence... ms liberty Jul 2015 #114
Actually I have addressed that issue of "compelling interest" elsewhere Wella Jul 2015 #119
if this argument is true DonCoquixote Jul 2015 #102
No, that's arguing backwards. Wella Jul 2015 #105
The one thing we all seem to forget is if the State has a compelling interest. Peregrine Jul 2015 #104
This is a good point. However, what would that compelling interest be? Wella Jul 2015 #106
Next thing you know, people will marry turtles. Jamastiene Jul 2015 #111
Turtles do not have recognized civil rights. Wella Jul 2015 #113
You should really study "rational basis" jurisprudence geek tragedy Jul 2015 #124
GLBT lawyers had to argue that institutionalized heterosexual monogamy Wella Jul 2015 #138
Since when has polygamous people become a "class" of people? justiceischeap Jul 2015 #266
Actually, the are considered, in some quarters, as a "sexual minority" (Psychology Today) Wella Jul 2015 #270
There is a rational basis to prevent polygamy lancer78 Jul 2015 #131
Interesting arguments but Wella Jul 2015 #140
Point #2 has been demonstrated. Aerows Jul 2015 #224
You know you just argued against gay people right? TampaAnimusVortex Jul 2015 #289
Apples and oranges. n/t Lil Missy Jul 2015 #132
Marriage to ONE person -- an adult, consenting, non-related person -- is a civil right, pnwmom Jul 2015 #137
The Loving decision made marriage a civil right but it was limited to heterosexuals Wella Jul 2015 #143
The state has no obligation to confer the benefits/responsibilities of legal marriage pnwmom Jul 2015 #146
No. The polyamorous will have to make their case Wella Jul 2015 #148
Perhaps the case will be made IN the media at some point, but... Zenlitened Jul 2015 #235
I think you're confusing what civil rights means. prayin4rain Jul 2015 #225
Completely different legal contract would need to be set up. alphafemale Jul 2015 #145
Yes, it will be hairy--no question. Wella Jul 2015 #150
Justice Roberts in the dissent to Obergefell also mentions polygamy: Wella Jul 2015 #162
polygamy and same sex marriages are structurally different booley Jul 2015 #198
The "overhaul of the system" excuse is going to wear thin as an argument as time goes on Wella Jul 2015 #208
it's a bit more then that booley Jul 2015 #237
Most married couples work out legal issues for themselves Wella Jul 2015 #257
OH FFS! DiverDave Jul 2015 #200
We're in uncharted waters Wella Jul 2015 #210
Why is this an issue? quaker bill Jul 2015 #204
Because the Sister/Wives guy filed for a marriage license, citing the SCOTUS decision Wella Jul 2015 #209
incorrect quaker bill Jul 2015 #272
Wikipedia. :) Wella Jul 2015 #273
I'm pretty sure I can tell the difference rock Jul 2015 #213
It is ill-considered to say "The original purpose of marriage..." Android3.14 Jul 2015 #215
There's another problem booley Jul 2015 #240
To you "liberals" duped into defending poly-whatever marriages romanic Jul 2015 #219
Duped? Polyamory is not some new thing and it's not about fooling anyone. Wella Jul 2015 #243
Hm, if two people are already married, then how can you have a contract DebJ Jul 2015 #221
Offensive and totally wrong...gay is trait, black is a trait, joeybee12 Jul 2015 #223
Actually, there is more evidence for polygamy/polyandry than there is for the hardwired gayness Wella Jul 2015 #246
No, it hasn't... SidDithers Jul 2015 #226
I wouldn't go so far as to say an inherent trait and a lifestyle choice are the same thing. Rex Jul 2015 #231
Actually, humans are inherently poly--plenty of research on that. Wella Jul 2015 #251
Polygamy is also a lifestyle choice. Rex Jul 2015 #260
If humans are inherently poly, polyamorists can argue that they are "born this way." Wella Jul 2015 #261
Homophobic scaremongering. Stop posting this bovine excrement. Betty Karlson Jul 2015 #238
No, it's the real deal. The polyamorous are now slowly coming out of the closet. Wella Jul 2015 #241
Poly-amory is a choice. Sexual orientation, even when at times fluid, is never a choice. Betty Karlson Jul 2015 #244
Actually, there is more evidence for polygamy/polyandry than there is for the hardwired gayness Wella Jul 2015 #249
"arguing it was genetically fixed" is a turn of phrase that implies the sexual orientation was not Betty Karlson Jul 2015 #264
They are getting closer to admitting Jamastiene Jul 2015 #275
I was just alerted to older posts (from january) Betty Karlson Jul 2015 #276
Interesting Blog by a Polyamorist (for people who are not familiar with the community) Wella Jul 2015 #239
But your OP is still based on a flat-out false premise. Zenlitened Jul 2015 #252
Actually it's not. Wella Jul 2015 #255
Not the argument that pretends marriage has suddenly been changed. Zenlitened Jul 2015 #262
Not really, there's no chance the Supreme Court is going to rule in favor of polygamy... PoliticAverse Jul 2015 #253
I give it 20 years Wella Jul 2015 #259
That is asinine speculation. gollygee Jul 2015 #265
Wanna put a $50 on it? Wella Jul 2015 #282
Bullshit. gollygee Jul 2015 #291
The reasoning of this decision does not easily extend to plurals. Adrahil Jul 2015 #277
Same-Sex to Plural Marriage? (Psychology Today) Wella Jul 2015 #269
This is homophobic bigotry. geek tragedy Jul 2015 #274
That phrase includes many factors like divorce, having children out of marriage, etc. Wella Jul 2015 #279
none of which change the role of marriage in providing stability. nt geek tragedy Jul 2015 #280
Certainly they do. When 50% of all new marriages end in divorce Wella Jul 2015 #281
oy. we see you. nt geek tragedy Jul 2015 #284
Uh....what? Wella Jul 2015 #286
Yeah bullshit ibegurpard Jul 2015 #287
Maybe, but I think at minimum it's a long way off. Bradical79 Jul 2015 #296
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The gay marriage decision...»Reply #13