01 Dec 2003 | One of several Steves said...

That is a fabulous article. I linked to it myself a few days ago commenting on the very same thing.

It's ironic that conservatives go on and on and on and on about how wonderful and fabulous marriage is and how everyone should do it, but when people - who they have historically criticized as being morally inferior in part because they're too promiscuous and not interested in lifelong commitment - want to take part in this wonderful and fabulous institution, then they go all apoplectic.

Truth be told, I'm much more comfortable with the people running around holding "God hates fags" signs than the people who are saying "we don't hate gays, but we don't want them to take part in society." At least the former are being intellectually honest and upfront about what they really believe. Whereas the others who couch this is some sort of "threat" to the family make it very clear, without actually saying so, that they view gays as not deserving of full participation in society.

01 Dec 2003 | donald said...

They should find an island and ship all the gays to it. They could name it France or something. Yeah that's right - I said it.

01 Dec 2003 | Louis said...

Point 4 sums it up for me:

"Here's what's really undermining the sacredness of modern marriage: soap operas, wedding planning, longer work days, cuter secretaries, fights over money, reality TV, low-rise pants, mothers-in-law, boredom, Victoria's Secret catalogs, going to bed mad, the billable hour, that stubborn 7 pounds, the Wiggles, Internet chat rooms, and selfishness."

01 Dec 2003 | Benjy said...

Great article! Calls out the conservatives on the stupidity of their reasons behind protesting gay marriage because they have't taken up the cause of things that are much more detrimental to the "sacredness" or marriage.

And I still don't understand how "sacredness" of marriage is a viable excuse anyway, seeing as the government is not supposed to take religious sides. I'm sure there are religions who don't have the issue with homosexuality that Christianity does. Of course, you still can't buy alcohol in the south on Sunday (or anything non-grocery before 1:30pm in SC, accorinding to a friend)...

01 Dec 2003 | Carl said...

Great article! Calls out the conservatives on the stupidity of their reasons behind protesting gay marriage because they have't taken up the cause of things that are much more detrimental to the "sacredness" or marriage.

Always jumping on the conservatives. Where are the leading democratic candidates on the issue of gay marriage? Where's Kerry? Gephardt? Dean? Clark? They are in favor of "civil unions," but not "gay marriage." But, hey, let's not talk about them, let's just bitch about the conservatives. Do you realize that your alternative to the conservatives aren't even in favor of your positions?

01 Dec 2003 | Eamon said...

"Civil unions" vs. "gay marriages" is not the issue. The issue is equal rights and protections under the law. Whatever the end result is named, the fight is for federally-recognized committed homosexual relationships with the same benefits offered to committed heterosexual relationships.

FYI:

And as a happily married man, let me throw in my two cents: if two 50-year-old lesbians in the Bronx are a threat to the sanctity of your marriage, you are in a bad, bad marriage.

01 Dec 2003 | Brian said...

Well said Carl.
An actual conservative would have a bigger problem with this authors proposal for mandatory counseling pre-marriage than gay marriage. I dont think the government needs a bigger role in our lives. How about people grow up and accept responsibility for their actions? Next well need a license to have children, who of course will go to a state-run daycare, and then off to receive a nop-notch public education on their way to a job as a government bureaucrat running the whole mess. Social Security for retirement and Medicare in old age. Cradle to grave, baby!

01 Dec 2003 | Carl said...

"Civil unions" vs. "gay marriages" is not the issue.

The candidates made them the issue. They refuse to support gay "marriage" because it conflicts with the sanctity of traditional marriage. Instead they use a different name for it ("civil union") so they can tightrope the issue. On one hand they can support the rights of gays, and on the other they can say "they aren't our equal so they get something else that we'll call a civil union." I don't see how they can claim they support equal treatment when they have to create a new category for a group of people. If they're equals, why can't they have what you have?

Personally I do support gay marriage, but I appreciate the consistent message coming from the right. The left, on the otherhand, can't seem to stand solidly behind their positions.

01 Dec 2003 | Darrel said...

McOrdained? Funny!

McMarriages!

Here's what's really undermining the sacredness of modern marriage...onger work days

In this country (US) ABSOLUTELY! The biggest strains on marriages that I see are simply money + work. We work way to much in this country. That is nothing but bad for a family unit.

They are in favor of "civil unions," but not "gay marriage."

What's the difference? Let's just pick a legal term that all marriages in the eyes of the law equal and be done with it.

I do agree that I think these candidates (well, ALL candidates) should just say what they mean instead of playing with words in some feeble attempt to accomodate all voters.

01 Dec 2003 | Benjy said...

Where are the leading democratic candidates on the issue of gay marriage? Where's Kerry? Gephardt? Dean? Clark?

I agree I think that the Democratic candidates are waffling on the issue and wish that they'd have the balls to take the right stance. But they micromanage their campaigns based on polling numbers, and the numbers only reflect a partial answer. The surveys always ask something along the lines of, "Do you support Gay Marriage?" So when a poll shows that, say 55% are not, then the candidates refuse to take a firm stance in favor.

But what if the poll asked a more relevant question, say "Would you vote for a candidate who held predominantly the views as you do, but was in favor of gay marriages?" I am sure that there are many people who place more emphasis on other issues (the war, the economy) and would continue to support a partiular candidate even if they didn't agree on a smaller issue.

01 Dec 2003 | Carl said...

They are in favor of "civil unions," but not "gay marriage." What's the difference?

Beats me. You better ask the Democratic candidates since they seem to think there's a difference. Enough of a difference, in fact, so they don't have to say they support "gay marriage."

01 Dec 2003 | brian said...

Kind of sad that an article like that had to be written in the first place.

01 Dec 2003 | benry said...

It's a non issue. I live in Canada.

01 Dec 2003 | Matthew Oliphant said...

excerpted from pint #4: going to bed mad.

To me this is the number one reason. And it was the only advice my mom gave me on my wedding day.

And, btw, welcome Sarah. :)

01 Dec 2003 | sn said...

My parents (mother and her partner) got together back in the seventies, way before it was somewhat acceptable to be gay. Their marriage is still going strong to this day, much longer than many hetrosexual unions. I'm waiting for the day that they can FINALLY be legally married.

It's a simple civil rights issue.

I agree with most of the articleexcept for the part about making divorce easier legally. Anyone who says that has obviously never been through a divorce. If it weren't for NY's no-fault divorce laws, I'd still be trapped in a bad marriage. Way too many women end up with bad or abusive spouses who leave them holding the bag financially, or with the sole support of children.

Rather it should be harder to get married. I could bring my cat to city hall and walk out with a license.

01 Dec 2003 | One of several Steves said...

Personally I do support gay marriage, but I appreciate the consistent message coming from the right. The left, on the otherhand, can't seem to stand solidly behind their positions.

I don't see the consistency Carl. "Marriage is wonderful, everyone should do it."

"Well, not those people. They shouldn't marry."

"Gay people are immoral because they're promiscuous and hop from partner to partner."

"So, they want to commit to each other? Too bad. No marriage for you."

The only ones on the conservative side of the coin I see being consistent are the ones who don't make any effort to hide their bigotry and hatred of gays. A lot of mainstream conservatism is fighting the dual urges of realizing that it's no longer socially acceptable to be blatantly homophobic, but they still hate gays and cannot deal with the simple fact that they exist, let alone that they should be treated the same as any other person.

And the left has been pretty consistent on this issue for quite a while, as far as I can see. None of the Democratic candidates is part of the left, except maybe Kucinich and Sharpton. Dean, Clark, Kerry, Gephardt certainly aren't.

01 Dec 2003 | ed said...

this is a total non-issue. Gay Marriages are inevitable. In 50 years we'll look back and realize this was a civil rights issue with the same significance as the black rights movement and womens rights movement. We can not continue to treat differently merely by putting them into a defining box. And those of us who do, are merely fighting a lost cause. Gay Marriages may be not be condoned in the bible, but denying someone their civil rights, based on sexual persuasion, is purely Un-American. The Conservatives are right on one point, the government should stay outta this and let the people do what they want. If you wanna get married to someone of the same sex, then you should have the god-given right 9 (bless her soul) to do so and those who do, shouldn't need the support of the majority of Americans to do this.

01 Dec 2003 | One of several Steves said...

The Conservatives are right on one point, the government should stay outta this and let the people do what they want.

The irony is the conservatives aren't saying this. They're pushing for constitutional amendments that say exactly the contrary.

Libertarians, from what I've seen, are consistent and believe that the government should let people do what they want.

And no one that I've seen has ever said any church should have to recognize any marriage at all. There's a civil and a religious component, and that's something that I would wish more people would recognize. (In fact, in Germany, they actually have separate ceremonies for the two.)

01 Dec 2003 | Benjy said...

In 50 years we'll look back and realize this was a civil rights issue with the same significance as the black rights movement and womens rights movement.

Does anybody know of anyplace with info on the political battles over allowing interracial marriage? I have a feeling that the same weak excuses (the bible's against it; they have loose morals) are used to justify the right's stance but I'm not sure...

02 Dec 2003 | pb said...

So where do we drawn the line then? Multiple spouses? How about cousins? Siblings? Parent and child? Friends? Why not?

Is it a right or really a privilege?

Seems like a legislative decision to me, not judicial.

And an ammendment is preposterous no matter which side you're on.

02 Dec 2003 | Bryant Cutler said...

Marriage is the foundation of our society. Children should grow up with a mother and a father who care for them and for each other. Not as has been noted, by people who are McMarried and spend more time apart than together. AND not by homosexual "couples." Every time I see an article about a gay couple wanting to "have children" I shudder.

Am I the only politically conservative person in the entire design world? Sometimes I wonder...

02 Dec 2003 | One of several Steves said...

So where do we drawn the line then? Multiple spouses? How about cousins? Siblings? Parent and child? Friends? Why not?

Friends? What's wrong with friends marrying? Hell, I'd say it's pretty much a requirement for a healthy, lasting marriage that the people involved be friends.

Marriages of parent/child and siblings (and in most, but not all states, cousins) can be and are prohibited on public health grounds, since there is a demonstrably greater risk of hereditary and genetic issues should there be offspring.

I personally see no problems with multiple partners. As long as all parties consent, I don't see what business it is of the government's to decide. Churches, that's a different story. But, as I mentioned before, we're talking civil marriage. Religions don't have to recognize these at all if they don't want to. That's the beauty of the First Amendment.

02 Dec 2003 | One of several Steves said...

Bryant, a couple legitimate, serious questions:

How is marriage "the foundation of our society"? The idea of romantic love as part of marriage is a pretty new phenomenon (a couple hundred years) and for most of the history of Western civilization, marriage has been a property and contractural transaction, not a romantic one. The church has placed heavy emphasis on it for 1500 years, but there it's more for procreation. Do you hold that marriage without procreation is also problematic (an argument I have seen more than occasionally lately from commentators on this topic).

Secondly, why should children not be married by homosexual couples (no need for quotes, since a couple is simply two people)? Can you point to any research that demonstrates that children are better off with male and female parents, rather than simply two parents (there's plenty of research to show that in general children are better off with two parents, but I haven't seen it break it down in terms of saying it has to be male/female).

02 Dec 2003 | One of several Steves said...

Secondly, why should children not be married by homosexual couples

Er, why should children not be raised by homosexual couples. Oops.

02 Dec 2003 | aliotsy said...

How is marriage "the foundation of our society"? The idea of romantic love as part of marriage is a pretty new phenomenon.

Maybe I'm just stupid, but I don't see why you're bringing up romantic love. Bryant said marriage was the foundation of society, not romantic love. You're not responding to his point at all.

Ideally, they shouldn't be mutually exclusive, of course. :)

02 Dec 2003 | ed said...

"AND not by homosexual "couples." Every time I see an article about a gay couple wanting to "have children" I shudder."

Why do you shudder? There's actually tons of good research out there that suggests that as long as a child is raised in a house hold with 2 loving parents, it really doesn't matter what sex the parents are. I understand your position based on your Conservative beliefs, but the idea that there needs to be a man and women in the home is simply not true and more a product of your culture than of fact.

maybe i'm wrong but i have trouble seeing conservatives as compassionate and empathetic human beings. even staunchly religious conservatives, i have trouble seeing them as spiritual people. I have close family members who are conservative and it always seems as though they are trying to push their belief system on others, this is not a particularly spiritual or conscientious way to behave and often comes of judgemental and short-sighted. but then again, that's just my experience...

02 Dec 2003 | Sarah said...

Woohoo! So much controversy, and it's only my first day! 29 to go!!

02 Dec 2003 | One of several Steves said...

Maybe I'm just stupid, but I don't see why you're bringing up romantic love. Bryant said marriage was the foundation of society, not romantic love. You're not responding to his point at all.

No, I'm not responding to his point, because I didn't intend to. I'm asking questions about his point.

The reason I bring it up is because the modern Western conception of what marriage is is quite different than the conception of what marriage is in much of the rest of the world, and what it was in the West not that long ago. That's a crucial thing if one's going to say that marriage is the foundation of society.

02 Dec 2003 | MrBlank said...

I think pb had a valid point. Where do we draw the line? Cousins? Siblings? What about gay siblings and cousins? You cant argue the inbred offspring point if it is a same sex union. Animals? Multiple spouses? This sounds like a more valid argument than proclaiming that gay marriage ruins the sanctity of marriage or gays arent monogamous.

Why should we draw the line after gay marriage instead of before it?

The definition of marriage has to change for this to be resolved, but with everyone having a different idea on the matter, how can government make a decision for everyone? Im all for people marrying who they want, I just dont think its the governments business.

02 Dec 2003 | Benjy said...

So where do we drawn the line then? Multiple spouses? How about cousins? Siblings? Parent and child? Friends? Why not?

A typical tactic used to discredit one side's position. The issue is not polygamy, incest, etc. The issue being debated is gay marriage.

One amost any issue, there are further extremes that could be considered if following an argument to the furthest progression. Imagine when they decided to drop the voting age to 18. "So where do we drawn the line then? 10 year olds? How about babies? Fetuses? Dogs? The French? Why not?" But we don't let fetuses or dogs vote.

pb, stick to the issue at hand.

02 Dec 2003 | Anon said...

There's nothing wrong with feeling awkward, or uncomfortable about a situation that is contrarary to your personal beliefs. We all understand and sympathize with that feeling.

As a society we put limits on marriage to act as protection against birth defects from inter-marriage, or between an adult and child -- that's very reasonable. I think the concept of multiple spouses is flawed (when you look at it without religious interpretation) because unless there is a single person "in charge" there can be no end. When we talk about multiple spouses we assume multiple wives for one man - talk about in-equality. Based solely on my limited understanding of human interaction, I can't imagine a healthy, stable, and single relationship of marriage between any number of men and women. Woah! Crazy huh? One man and several wives (or reverse) works better better because of ownership, but that isn't benefial or equal either. We prevent the marriage between multiple spouses becuase, in practice, it undermines the equality of partners. For me, that's a reason to stand behind, and I'd be curious to hear an argument contrary to that.

Some would feel that talking about multiple spouses, inter-family marriage might be off-topic, but we're not just talking about same-sex couples, we're talking about redefining the legal defination of marriage. That is the overlap and it is a reasonable concern. It's important to recognize the boundries, even though state imposed boundries will always be questionable. It's also fair to agree that any such change should not be made on a whim, lest it might undermine the protections of equality.

I accepted one person in my life. That person happens to be of the opposite sex. To accept additional spouses would be contrary to our personal beliefs and that is part of the agreement between us as consenting adults. For me to stand against marriage between 2 adults on the basis of gender alone I can only accept reasoning which points to protecting society, not protecting the comfort-zone of a group, regardless of size. Equality is equality, period. A civil union can only represent the state authority, and not a religious one. For the state to recognize 2 distinct unions is to segregate and is inadequate and wholly inappropriate. Equalty cannot have limits, it must have protections. Maybe Germany has it right.

I shudder to think of people who argue extremes on behalf of their religion alone, but the protections are not there to save me the grief of being confronted with situations which make me uncomfortable. They are there to prevent sanctioning of dangerous behaviour such as children from being taken advantage of by adults. This is what we should refer to when we speak about "protecting society." There is no evidence that gay couples will be bad parents or role models. Gay couples probably have to be more fearful of how intolerance by others would have a negative effect on my children, and that's not within their control.

Funny... not to demean this discussion, but intolerance is an issue that strikes me as a concern that really does undermine society as a whole.

02 Dec 2003 | One of several Steves said...

Im all for people marrying who they want, I just dont think its the governments business.

I agree. The thing is, by defining it as a union between only certain classifications of people, the government's already made it its business. Add in things like beneficial tax rates for married couples, additional deductions for children, presumed rights in inheritance, etc., and government's neck-deep in the issue. And, in my opinion, it's why opening up the definition of marriage is the right thing to do. I think it's morally wrong that someone who's been with the same partner for 30 years can have their decisions and input overruled by a distant relative at a time of death or illness, just because the law gives that sort of preference. That's all gays are asking for.

Based solely on my limited understanding of human interaction, I can't imagine a healthy, stable, and single relationship of marriage between any number of men and women.

There are a lot of things in human experience I cannot imagine, and yet people find ways to make it work. I've known polyamorous arrangements of all sorts, and I've seen them work over extended periods of time. I don't get it. But I don't have to.

I think as long as all parties are capable of consent (which is why the red herring of marrying animals isn't even valid even disregarding the logical fallaciousness of the argument), people should be able to do as they wish.

And at the same time, getting back to the original article, I believe that the price of entry for marriage needs to be stiffened. A single man and woman should not be allowed to marry frivolously any more than two men, two women, or a group of 3 men and 5 women. Take the institution itself seriously, rather than defining it on the accidents of gender and sexual preference.

02 Dec 2003 | MrBlank said...

"A typical tactic used to discredit one side's position. The issue is not polygamy, incest, etc. The issue being debated is gay marriage."

Yes, and the question being posed by bp is why is polygamy, incest marriage, etc. not OK while gay marriage is. You have to explore both sides in order to know where to draw the line. There's a reason why the voting age stopped at 18 and not 10.

Thank you Anon. That's the kind of reply I was looking for.

02 Dec 2003 | pb said...

Benjy, that is ridiculous. Of course those comparisons are wholly relevant as that is the whole question: who can enter into a marriage? I would say your tactic of side-stepping the issue is curious.

Regarding government, Steve has it correct: it's entirely the government's business since many/most of the privileges associated with a marriage are government-issued.

03 Dec 2003 | darrel said...

"Yes, and the question being posed by bp is why is polygamy, incest marriage, etc. not OK while gay marriage is."

In many societies throughout the ages, polygamy, incest, marrying children, gay marriage, etc. have all been OK.

This is just a social taboo issue. Norms change. There's no *real* reason for denying two gay people that love each from being married other than there are those that just don't want it to happen. There are some bilogical issues with incest and there are psycological issues with marrying children, so at least there's a *bit* of data for those arguments. Polygamy? Is there really any evidence that that is bad or is that just a social taboo?

03 Dec 2003 | Anon said...

Bryant Cutler:
You made some pretty specific statements which you obviously stand behind. I have to ask you, in all honesty and seriousness, what supports your belief in those statements? I'd like to better understand how you've come to the conclusion that Children *should* grow up with a mother and a father... AND not by homosexual 'couples.'" You're definitely engaged in an forum with very open-minded people. Speaking for myself, I don't want you to feel as though I'm personally trying to attack you or your beliefs. I present before you some examples of the basis of my beliefs in the hope of promoting tolerance and understanding, and not to make anyone feel less uncomfortable about the topic.

It's a no-brainier that there are lots of people who feel strongly about this topic. We are faced with the ever-clearer reality that these beliefs are rooted far from facts and based on fear and/or religious teachings from various faiths.

Despite my lack of research, I found this fairly well written article that blasts research promoting gay parenting, which calls into question research used to support pro same-sex parenting. What I noted was that same-sex parenting was discredited as being an unknown and ill-studied topic. I wouldn't deny the topic deserves more study, the same way all parenting is studied -- always. The arguments arguing against same-sex parenting stemmed from the same righteous should, should not... and because it's wrong, foundation which I, and others, find personally offensive. It claims that 43% of homosexuals had sex with five hundred or more partners, with 28 percent having 1,000 or more sex partners. Really? Wow. Somehow, if these types of claims could really hold up to scrutiny, I would imagine it being reported on the news, and more sex-crazed folks joining in the party. I wouldn't want to tell the gay folks I know: I wouldn't want them to get self-conscious and feel bad that they were missing out on all that sex while just trying to have a 'normal' relationship with someone of the same gender.

We will always have unhealthy relationships in our society, regardless of martial status. It's unfortunate at best, but few will argue that a half-ass McMarriage does anyone any good. The Child Welfare League of America has an article which is more anecdotal than scientific in discussing same-sex parenting. The only people who seem against more research are those who are against gay issues and civil rights. I can only come to the conclusion that no proof exists that gay marriages or gay parents are any different and are certainly not dangerous to children. Unless you base that fear on the danger of being chastised and lynched by intolerant and benevolent people. I imagine we might hear similar stories from people involved in fighting for other civil rights.

In all, I learned that more countries then I'd ever realized are indifferent to same-sex parents, and have been for longer than I'd known. It's not just a few kids who've made it through okay over the years, there are lots of success stories, and no failures specific to sexuality. For all the morally right opinions against, I just can't find anything grounded firmly in fact which supports any reason to be concerned about gay families.

03 Dec 2003 | Chris said...

What I want to know is why Anti-gay speak is still the only publicly acceptable prejudice?

03 Dec 2003 | a girl said...

sorry, chris. in this society, at this time, it isn't acceptable to speak out AGAINST the homosexual agenda. THAT would make you 'closed-minded,' in most people's eyes. forget the fact that it's still a constitutional RIGHT to possess your own opinions, faith-driven or otherwise, but i guess we all like to forget that when it doesn't jive with what WE think. it's actually completely acceptable in this culture, still, to openly put down overweight people, who make up a much higher percent of the population than gays (just as a side note).

this whole issue is a bunch of propaganda, but i can't say that i'm surprised. this world is all turning out just as it was predicted from the beginning. may God have mercy on us all.

03 Dec 2003 | pb said...

You're definitely engaged in an forum with very open-minded people.

I'd say this forum is the opposite. This is clearly not a Fox News forum.

What I want to know is why Anti-gay speak is still the only publicly acceptable prejudice?

Again, I think the opposite is really the case, which is clear from this thread.

03 Dec 2003 | pb said...

1st and 3rd paragraphs were quoting.

03 Dec 2003 | Darrel said...

It claims that 43% of homosexuals had sex with five hundred or more partners, with 28 percent having 1,000 or more sex partners.

Well *that* explains it then...all these folks that are dead-set against gay marriage are just insanely jealous that the gay folks 'got more' than they ever did. ;o)

(What kind of sample group did they use for that survey? 5 people working at a gay brothel in rural Nevada?)

05 Dec 2003 | Brad Hurley said...

Andrew Tobias has some interesting comments on this in his daily column today.

07 Dec 2003 | Glenn [GS7] said...

You nailed it right on the head! Absolutely right.
You have to start at home before you can change the world!

08 Dec 2003 | pb said...

The column was positively, completely uninforming.

09 Dec 2003 | David Locke said...

Frankly being divorced, I'd say a waiting period should not be required for a divorce.

Marrage sure. It should be three years from the first day you laid eyes on each other. That is the first sniff. At two and a half years, you would find yourself free of the passion chemistry and free of the friendship chemistry. You would be running on respect and genuine liking of the person, and of course history.

But, divorce happens two ways, you come home and everything is gone. Nobody told you. It's just gone. And, the other way is the long slow death, particularly if your spouse is a manic depressive. After six years of that, there was no law that was going to make me wait another minute. Otherwise, depression fallout could have killed me.

The keys to avoiding divorce are stable finances, letting no man put assunder like a father in law, and avoiding manic depressives. You will avoid the schitzos yourself. They are obvious. But, the passion thing causes seritonin production which cures for the moment and just a monent depression. The day will come when you are no longer a pill, then blam, you go to hell via a thousand cuts and disregards. Making someone wait to get out of that is to sentence them to death.

The real problem is our trend towards individualism at the expense of society. Society is dying as we disconnect and stop contributing. Objectivism is an ideology just as bad as communism. Society was not the enemy historically speaking, but somehow society and socialism have been confused.

In regards to real socialism, you have a goverment advertising the fact that they underwrite business. Here in America we underwrite business, but keep it private to the detriment of taxpayers and any sense of fairness. So what is the difference.

If society is dying then what is the point of smaller social units like families.

10 Dec 2003 | Brad Hurley said...

This just received from a friend:

EPISCOPAL GAY BISHOP AN "AFFRONT" TO TRADITIONAL CHRISTIAN MARRIAGE

The actions taken by the New Hampshire Episcopalians are an affront to Christians everywhere. I am just thankful that the church's founder, Henry VIII, and his wife Catherine of Aragon and his wife Anne Boleyn and his wife Jane Seymour and his wife Anne of Cleves and his wife Katherine Howard and his wife Catherine Parr are not here to suffer through this assault on traditional Christian marriage.

21 Jan 2004 | RS said...

Testing counter-spam measures.