Advertisement

Archive for Wednesday, February 4, 2009

Couple who led gay marriage fight divorcing

February 4, 2009

Advertisement

— A lesbian couple who led the fight for gay marriage in Massachusetts have filed for divorce.

Julie and Hillary Goodridge were among seven gay couples who filed a lawsuit that led to a court ruling making Massachusetts the first state to legalize same-sex marriages in 2004. The couple became the public face of the debate in the state and married the first day same-sex marriages became legal.

The couple announced they were separating in 2006.

Comments

hawkperchedatriverfront 5 years, 2 months ago

justfornow, really does the penis make a difference? That being the case, I believe I am figuring out why the city's residents marriage to the city commission is ripe for anulment.

0

bangaranggerg 5 years, 2 months ago

I'd say that this took a strange turn but this article's comment section was doomed from the start.

0

75x55 5 years, 2 months ago

Hey, you crude people - this is about lesbian marriage, not guns!

0

notajayhawk 5 years, 2 months ago

meggers (Anonymous) says… "As long as the government is codifying marriage by providing additional benefits to married couples, the option should be available to all consenting adults, regardless of gender."A gay man has exactly the same right to those benefits as a heterosexual man does. And he can get them in exactly the same way as a heterosexual man does.By marrying a woman.*****beatrice (Anonymous) says…"ChiH, do you really think sex is only possible when about 6” of flesh is or isn't involved? Gee, not very imaginative, are you."If six inches is all you can talk about, it's you that has the limited imagination, bea.

0

justfornow 5 years, 2 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

0

justfornow 5 years, 2 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

0

justfornow 5 years, 2 months ago

This relationship had a double wammy from the start, never would've worked.

0

West_Sider 5 years, 2 months ago

beatrice (Anonymous) says… ChiH, do you really think sex is only possible when about 6” of flesh is or isn't involved? Gee, not very imaginative, are you.**********According to Bill Clinton, acts involving the insertion 6" of flesh into another human are definitely NOT sex. I think that answer is the most imaginative (and hilarious) of all.

0

beobachter 5 years, 2 months ago

hi sven, aka rusty2. welcome back now we get get more total bs per post as per your normal posts.

0

Tom Shewmon 5 years, 2 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

0

justfornow 5 years, 2 months ago

It was doomed from the start as females cause all the problems in marriage.

0

none2 5 years, 2 months ago

beatrice (Anonymous) says…"I think they are destroying the sanctity of divorce."==============================Best post of the day!

0

hawkperchedatriverfront 5 years, 2 months ago

They just couldn't figure out who would wear the pants of the house.

0

Multidisciplinary 5 years, 2 months ago

I keep telling ya, You go view that stuff, then you die in a car wreck, your kids take your computer home, and browse your history listings...this ain't Nana's furry handcuffs!

0

Shane Garrett 5 years, 2 months ago

What was really funny was watching Carmen Electra ride the Sybian!

0

bangaranggerg 5 years, 2 months ago

Ya, I started to question if anything was real. It was wild. Kept asking myself "what if they are all the same person"... Na it was funny though.

0

ifihadahammer 5 years, 2 months ago

I'm her husband, troll. If you don't sign out of your account that sort of thing can happen. But I'm glad she got under your skin.

0

bangaranggerg 5 years, 2 months ago

SWGlassPit- I'm glad you learned what ad hominem meant and am sure you want to point that out to people as often as you can. I called someone stupid only after having to define what words mean to them. Is it "ad hominem" to call a spade- a spade?

0

bangaranggerg 5 years, 2 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

0

Tristan Moody 5 years, 2 months ago

Bang--If you want to be taken seriously, you should never make the decision to "go ad hominem." Attack the argument, not the person. Calling someone stupid is what you do when you can't think of any good points yourself.

0

Multidisciplinary 5 years, 2 months ago

Oh, I was mistaken.It's not the sybian that I was linked into by a friend (that I may smack in the head next time I see him) it was what they call the next generation of "something machines".It was another site for machines. I can't even post a link on here, as the URL name itself is not printable. (If people start thinking that's the norm for human behavior, humans are in for big trouble.)

0

badger 5 years, 2 months ago

So I look at this and I think, "What would I do next, if I lived in a state where same-sex marriage was legal, to make things difficult for states where it's not?"I think, "I would marry someone of my own gender and then divorce, making sure that there was some fiscal obligation inherent in the divorce decree, like an alimony payment or a continuation of insurance. Then I would move to a state that defines marriage as between only a man and a woman, and refuse to abide by the court-ordered divorce decree on the grounds that since the marriage isn't recognized by my state of residence, the decree covering its dissolution shouldn't be either. And then I would let the state governments fight out whether or not one state has the right to protect someone from the orders of a court in another state based on the legality of a marriage, and let my new state of residence enjoy its status as a haven for deadbeat gays looking to dodge their obligations."Same-sex divorce looks like it would hurt the cause of same-sex marriage, but ultimately, it's things like "can a child support agreement made as part of the dissolution of a legal marriage between two same-sex adults in one state be enforced if one of those adults flees to a state where the relationship has no legal standing?" that will decide this issue on the national level.

0

asleepinthechapel 5 years, 2 months ago

Multi you crack me up... I love real life sex.

0

Shane Garrett 5 years, 2 months ago

Zettapixel Thanks. I learn something new everyday. Now I'll know what to buy for Valentines day. Again Thanks.

0

bangaranggerg 5 years, 2 months ago

Did Rachelisacancer create a new profile- ifihadahammer and then post "Rachelisacancer is right"? Pretty sure that happened.

0

asleepinthechapel 5 years, 2 months ago

I've never even heard of the Sybian. Sounds scandalous. Better not google it at work.

0

Multidisciplinary 5 years, 2 months ago

spoiler alert..do not go to that website..what has been seen, cannot be unseen!

0

Ray Parker 5 years, 2 months ago

Five years ago today, the Massachusetts Supreme “court” used civil unions as a wedge to hammer the legalized sodomite mockery of marriage into a status recognized by state government. This pattern of using legalized sodomite unions to force legally recognized sodomy upon American society has been repeated by leftist, activist judges in Californicatia and elsewhere, threatening the institution of marriage throughout the USofA, proving repeatedly that no compromise is possible in the defense of marriage.We shall soon see whether Californicatia’s leftist, activist judges dare to declare an amendment just voted in to the state constitution to be “unconstitutional.”

0

zettapixel 5 years, 2 months ago

Wallythewalrus said..."From what I hear, the newest thing for women is something called “the rabbit”."Wally... rabbits are old and outdated... the "in thing" now is the Sybian! ;)

0

bangaranggerg 5 years, 2 months ago

I'm going to throw up. You just stated "How ironic." Seriously if you don't like my opinion of you - improve yourself. You're not even close to making sense. Is ifihadahammer and Rachelisacancer the same person?

0

Trobs 5 years, 2 months ago

Dena, I have no issue with free food. Besides, I have tums.

0

logicsound04 5 years, 2 months ago

"That's why the determination to go ad hominem was made."----------------Wow, it sounds so intellectual when you phrase it like that!/sarcasm

0

ifihadahammer 5 years, 2 months ago

Bang - You went ad hominem before you ever even attempted to make a point. Post at 10:17 a.m. - first thing out of your mouth was an attack on me personally. Ah, truth. Irrefutable. I understand the words, I'm just refusing to acknowledge how you twist them to fit your agenda. Kind of like how you refuse to address a real argument, only not so lame. You have nothing to offer, yet you keep on running your mouth. How ironic.

0

invictus 5 years, 2 months ago

someone put on their sassy pants this morning

0

Gootsie 5 years, 2 months ago

and this could have been so much fun....

0

bangaranggerg 5 years, 2 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

0

denak 5 years, 2 months ago

"....Oh dena, go make me some dinner. ;)..."My pleasure, sweetpea I have a lovely arsenic casserole that's just to die for. :)

0

ifihadahammer 5 years, 2 months ago

Bangaranggerg - If you're trying to make a point, focus on developing an argument. Name calling makes you look weak and only furthers dismissal of whatever you were trying to say.

0

Multidisciplinary 5 years, 2 months ago

beatrice (Anonymous) says…ChiH, do you really think sex is only possible when about 6” of flesh is or isn't involved? Gee, not very imaginative, are you.==You've almost got that right, just switch the words around a bit.Imaginative sex is what happens when 6" of flesh is involved. Real life sex is only possible when 9-12" is involved.Those who say size doesn't matter, just hasn't experienced the difference.Whoo HOOO!;~)

0

rachaelisacancer 5 years, 2 months ago

Bangaranggerg:If insulting me is the best you've got, so be it. You think you sound clever? Think again. If you're capable. Can you dispute the fact that these women fought for an equal right and then exercised that right? Let me remind you: calling me stupid isn't a rebuttal. And you can call me stupid from here to kingdom come, but that doesn't change the fact that you're the one being willfully ignorant and immature. I'm not angry that you're calling me stupid without being capable of refuting what I've said. I just feel sorry for you now because you won't stop and you can't come up with anything better.

0

Tristan Moody 5 years, 2 months ago

See, bangaranggerg, you had the makings of a good argument there. Then you went with the ad hominem and lost all credibility. It's a shame.

0

bangaranggerg 5 years, 2 months ago

Okay I've defined irony for you now I'm going to have to define the word "role" for you. Role is a set of connected behaviors, rights and obligations as conceptualized by actors in a social situation. Homosexuals and heterosexuals exhibit different behaviors and have been afforded different rights, when one of those rights changed something occurred called a "role reversal". You should also look up "stupid" in the dictionary, there is an unflattering picture of you.

0

invictus 5 years, 2 months ago

Oh dena, go make me some dinner. ;)

0

denak 5 years, 2 months ago

"......Why are women involved in more divorces than men?...."Economic freedom. Look up the stats. The more economic freedom women have in a society, the more likely they are to initiate divorce proceedings. Dena

0

denak 5 years, 2 months ago

It is unfortunate that Julie and Hillary Goodridge is getting a divorce but sometimes marriages/relationships fall apart once the "cause" is achieved. The cause becomes the defininig characteristic of the relationship/marriage but once that is taken out of the picture the couple finds out that there isn't enough to sustain the relationship.I have a cousin and he and his ex-wife were together for 8 years. My late aunt hated this woman(for what reason I don't know) but for 8 years, it was them against her. That was the cause. The moment that my aunt died and they were free to marry, they did. They got divorced less than 6 months later. I have friend who was involved with a certain political issue and there was a couple who were involved. The director of this organization always discouraged relationships because the relationships were more about the cause then the people. And sure enough, once one of them left and pursued other things, the relationship fell apart.So, that is what I think might have happened with them. The divorce isn't an indictment on "gay marriage" nor does it prove that homosexuals and lesbians are less able to commit.I think that they were two people who perhaps made this issue the center of their relationship and once achieved, there was nothing to hold it together.Dena

0

smitty 5 years, 2 months ago

"These are not folks who just met each other last week and said, `Let's get married.' These are folks who have been together in some cases for decades," said Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights................In San Francisco, Mayor Gavin Newsom, who helped launch the series of lawsuits that led the court to strike down California's one-man-one-woman marriage laws, presided at the wedding of Del Martin, 87, and Phyllis Lyon, 84. Newsom picked the couple for the only ceremony in City Hall Monday in recognition of their long relationship and their status as pioneers of the gay rights movement......http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25188169/Look up their names. Hetrosexual women owe this couple much due to all the work on domestic violence, not just homosexual politics. As far as that is comcerned, men and our evolving society owe them much credit for their work in trying to educate us.For those of you that are so ignorant as to ask "how do they do that?", read a book. If you need assistance in finding the reading material, ask the customer assist deak at any book store. You can just look at the pictures if your reading comprehension is as bad as it seems.

0

tjhoops69 5 years, 2 months ago

beatrice...please speak for yourself when referencing 6 inches of flesh! That is quite disgusting. I knew this thread was gonna be hopping but I never figured that it would come to this!

0

Shane Garrett 5 years, 2 months ago

From what I hear, the newest thing for women is something called "the rabbit".

0

Angela Heili 5 years, 2 months ago

One Half of All Marriages End in Divorce"This statistic is the ace in the hole when it comes to showing the moral decay of our times--politicians use it, preachers use it, marriage counselors use it--but statistically speaking, it's useless. This figure is derived by taking then number of marriages per year and comparing it to the number of divorces per year. And since there are nearly half as many divorces as marriages, people conclude that half of all marriages end in divorce. This statistic would be correct if everyone married only once and divorced only once, but thanks to the Larry Kings and the Elizabeth Taylors of the world, things just don't add up. The actual number of marriages that end in divorce is closer to 1 in 4, or 25 percent."Reference: Stupid History: Tales of Stupidity, Strangeness and Mythconceptions Throughout the Ages. by Leland GregoryAlso:http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/d/divorce.htmhttp://www.population.govt.nz/myth-busters/Myth+1.htmetc, etc.

0

beatrice 5 years, 2 months ago

ChiH, do you really think sex is only possible when about 6" of flesh is or isn't involved? Gee, not very imaginative, are you.

0

notnowdear 5 years, 2 months ago

Welcome to the questionable world of institutionalized matrimony. I never could understand why people would fight to be able to marry. It isn't that great an social institution. Obviously over half of women in this country feel the same as me, for they are living without spouse. Women living WITH spouse is now a minority in this country.

0

invictus 5 years, 2 months ago

"how can anyone argue that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry on the basis of commitment when over half of heterosexual marriages end in divorce?"Half of hetrosexuals should not be allowed to marry either. In a religious context after a divorce one should not be able to remarry unless they were widowed.

0

Larry_The_Moocher 5 years, 2 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

0

ChiHawkInKS 5 years, 2 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

0

rachaelisacancer 5 years, 2 months ago

Well bang, you cast your troll net by calling me a troll and pointing out "thick irony" where there is none. So you are a troll.You give a very good explanation of irony, yet you fail to notice you counter your own suggestion that this story is ironic by saying "now throw in a role reversal and you have irony." There's been no role reversal here. These women fought for equal rights and then exercised those rights. And no, we're not even. I was being sarcastic when I said we were. You understand name calling, I thought you'd understand sarcasm as well. I'd have a long way to go to get down to your level.

0

bangaranggerg 5 years, 2 months ago

I'm not really a troll, a troll is someone who casts a wider net to ensnare many people into arguments. I'm merely someone who got dragged into the net by pointing out it's a human interest story. For the most part arguing the definition of irony on your part has been asinine. True irony involves two things; events and situations (or the like) that go in the same direction. Notice there is nothing going in opposite directions. There is a parallel involved, not repulsion. Try to picture "similarity with a twist" or "equivalence reciprocated" (if that helps). Picture a train track when you think of a parallel. They don't separate from each other but instead resemble each other. Now throw in a role reversal and you have irony. That's how something opposite plays a part in irony, but such contrast is not always a part of irony. There are far to many variables to list but now you get the idea. Now, I wouldn't quite say we're even. On any level.

0

ifihadahammer 5 years, 2 months ago

rachaelisacancer is right. If the women had fought for the right to love each other til death did them part and then gave up on that, then it would be ironic. But they just fought to do what heterosexual couples do and considering the 50% divorce rate, they did it quite well.

0

logicsound04 5 years, 2 months ago

"The problem is this feeds fuel to their detractors that say they can't commit"------------------I didn't realize inability to commit was one of the primary arguments against homosexual marriage. And anyone who is using that "stick" is already working with pretty much a twig--how can anyone argue that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry on the basis of commitment when over half of heterosexual marriages end in divorce?

0

Trobs 5 years, 2 months ago

The problem is this feeds fuel to their detractors that say they can't commit. I don't care one way or the other if they want to get married. This gives those opposed to it a big stick to swing around on the "Can't Commit" arguement.

0

rachaelisacancer 5 years, 2 months ago

These women fought for an equal right, which included both the right to marry and the right to dissolve said marriage.Your inability to comprehend that is mind numbing, Akreed, so I'll leave it at that. They were leaders in a movement to gain the right to marry and divorce just like everybody else and they stuck with it, Trobs.And bang - you're a troll. We're even now. Glad I could join the big boys club.

0

Agnostick 5 years, 2 months ago

Male or female, heterosexual or homosexual, we all make mistakes. That's the only real point of the article.Best wishes and good luck in the future to both of them.Agnostickagnostick@excite.com

0

logicsound04 5 years, 2 months ago

"There is irony in battling for your right to marry and then getting divorced." - Akreed--------------They fought for the RIGHT to get married. They have not given up that right. They have, however, decided that they no longer wanted to be married to THAT person. Given the high percentage of marriages that end in divorce, claiming that a marriage ending in divorce is ironic makes no sense.

0

Kyle Reed 5 years, 2 months ago

rachaelisacancer (Anonymous) says… And “homo” is the short version of “homosexual.”True, homo is defined as:slang noun, plural -mos. Slang: Disparaging and Offensive. a homosexual.Your inability to comprehend irony is mind numbing so I'll leave it at that but you should at least practice what you preach and not call them "homos".

0

bangaranggerg 5 years, 2 months ago

Glad Rachelisatroll took this from what would obviously be a forum for "homo haters" and made it a forum to read self righteous ridiculously overstressed statements. Or else someone could have said something which could have been unfair to a struggle for human rights... on a comment section where people regularly say crazy things for no reason. I'm sure this is a platform where policy makers go to make their decisions that shape society, and you've effectively policed it now. /Sarcasm.I'm glad I'm here to educate you too.

0

Trobs 5 years, 2 months ago

If you are reading that as the ironic part I don't see it. You expect the leader of a movement to stick with it. No matter the movement it says a lot more for it when the biggest proponents of it stick with it. If you think the irony is a lie to seduce people into thinking homosexuals can't commit, I don't see it.

0

rachaelisacancer 5 years, 2 months ago

Akreed -There is no irony in battling for an equal right and then exercising that right. These women fought for the right to marry (and divorce) just like everyone else and that's what they did. Or did that get by you as well? The so-called irony here is a lie meant to drive at what many people believe, i.e. that homosexuals should never have been allowed to marry in the first place. They can't commit, so we're told. You know that, but you can pretend you don't if it makes your day better. And "homo" is the short version of "homosexual."Larry - My protein levels are just fine. Thanks for your concern. What a sweet person you are. Keep the personal attacks coming. You're all really proving your point.

0

Trobs 5 years, 2 months ago

Akreed beat me to it. It's ironic because they fought so hard for it only to give it up. I'm sure the blacks and women who fought for the right to vote did so every chance they had. The fact that many people are simply disenfranchised today and do not care does not reflect on the strides by those in the past.

0

rusty2 5 years, 2 months ago

i agree beatrice....destroying the sanctity of divorce, absolutely!Kansas allows convicted felons like Marty Miller who smothered his wife to death to marry in prison - makes complete sense for those of duplenty ilk, right?

0

rusty2 5 years, 2 months ago

duplenty is quoting ONLY the hebraic version of genesis.Indian/Vedic is much older and does not have the embedded morality of the 1800 pioneer america included in it.sorry duplenty your crit is obsolete in the new millienia (plural). to quote author Gore Vidal, "in 2500 years Jesus Christ will be about as well remembered as Jupiter & Minerva."

0

beatrice 5 years, 2 months ago

I think they are destroying the sanctity of divorce. barry, "irreconcilable similarities" -- now that is funny!

0

Larry_The_Moocher 5 years, 2 months ago

Rachael... sounds to me like your protein levels are low?

0

cthulhu_4_president 5 years, 2 months ago

These stories always bring out the low-watt intellectual bulbs e.g. barry and larry (cute names for a couple, btw)

0

Gootsie 5 years, 2 months ago

Do you think it should have been that they were separating in 2009, not 2006? Or has it just taken three years to get to the divorce?

0

Kyle Reed 5 years, 2 months ago

rachaelisacancer (Anonymous) says… "Thick irony? There's irony in people getting married and then getting divorced???! All this time I thought marriage had a 100% success rate."There is irony in battling for your right to marry and then getting divorced."blacks and women fought really hard to get the right to vote, and so many don't vote. Sure you can call it ironic, but that wasn't the “point” this article was really trying to make."Bad example, I would bet those blacks and women who fought for the right to vote voted every chance they got. Blacks or women not voting now isn't ironic at all. Unfortunate maybe but not ironic.I also find some irony in you proclaiming this a platform for haters to shout hypocritical b.s. while at the same time calling them "homo's". Did that one get by you as well?

0

meggers 5 years, 2 months ago

barrypenders,Women make up at least half of all adults infected with HIV/AIDS. This is due in part to the high occurrence of rape in some countries, but also because women are more anatomically susceptible to contracting the infection. The growing number of young women contracting the disease is quite startling. http://www.globalhealthreporting.org/diseaseinfo.asp?id=23

0

duplenty 5 years, 2 months ago

"The point is… God created Adam and Eve…. Not Adam and Steve."Um, first of all, prove it, and if you can, then who created Steve?

0

rachaelisacancer 5 years, 2 months ago

Bang (or should I call you "troll" in kind?) - Thick irony? There's irony in people getting married and then getting divorced???! All this time I thought marriage had a 100% success rate.I never knew such irony. Glad you're here to educate us all. And Trobs - blacks and women fought really hard to get the right to vote, and so many don't vote. Sure you can call it ironic, but that wasn't the "point" this article was really trying to make. It's just a platform for homo haters to shout their hypocritical b.s.

0

barrypenders 5 years, 2 months ago

"and about half were women"For whatever reason, more men.

0

Trobs 5 years, 2 months ago

The divorce is ironic, I think that's the point the story is making. They fought real hard to be allowed to marry, only to end up as most do. Divorced. Thankfully I am pretty sure my wife will kill me long before she leaves me.

0

bangaranggerg 5 years, 2 months ago

Rachelisatroll, the point is- it's a human interest story because of the thick irony.

0

rachaelisacancer 5 years, 2 months ago

Barry I can't find anything that says more men have AIDS than women. The article I found said that as of the end of 2007, about 30 million people were affected and about half were women.

0

meggers 5 years, 2 months ago

Yeah, and Ms. 'sanctity of marriage', Lynn Jenkin's husband filed for divorce the day after she won election. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it's pretty interesting to see folks railing about how gay marriage will somehow threaten the 'sanctity' of marriage, while their own marriages are falling apart. As long as the government is codifying marriage by providing additional benefits to married couples, the option should be available to all consenting adults, regardless of gender. And yes, a number of those marriages- both gay and straight- will end in divorce.

0

barrypenders 5 years, 2 months ago

Just to be fair I guess I could ask why more men have aids than women?I don't have any theories, that's why I am asking the question.

0

rusty2 5 years, 2 months ago

take it from a carpenter separating tongue & groove furniture construction is a lost art -- those kind of joints require a lot of initial craftsmanship but make for long term great fits, usually.much better than glued & screwed or modern composition board.

0

rusty2 5 years, 2 months ago

dear barrypenders -favorite quote attributed to W.C.Fields:there are two theories about women,both of them are wrong.

0

barrypenders 5 years, 2 months ago

Why are women involved in more divorces than men?

0

tjhoops69 5 years, 2 months ago

The point is, that there was an awful lot of fighting, and bashing, and name calling, and negativity to get what the homosexuals wanted in the beginning......Didnt they want to be married like everyone else?? Well, theres an old saying that goes.."Be carful what you wish for...you just might get it!" Could it be that the real agenda was just a reason to b!tch and fuss, and had nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with actually being married???

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 5 years, 2 months ago

" Not Adam and Steve."If God didn't create them, who did?

0

rachaelisacancer 5 years, 2 months ago

First of all Larry, that's not a point. Secondly, god didn't create anything because god doesn't exist. But if there was a god and it did create humans, Steve didn't get left out. He's here, he's queer... deal with it.

0

barrypenders 5 years, 2 months ago

I think the point is that females are the reason most marriages fall apart, hetero or homo.

0

Larry_The_Moocher 5 years, 2 months ago

The point is... God created Adam and Eve.... Not Adam and Steve.

0

barrypenders 5 years, 2 months ago

The survey revealed a high rate of legal divorce among homosexual couples in Sweden. Gay male couples were 50% more likely to divorce within an eight-year period than were heterosexuals; and lesbian couples were 167% more likely to divorce than heterosexual couples.http://www.narth.com/docs/sweden.html

0

barrypenders 5 years, 2 months ago

It sounds like another case of irreconcilable similarities.

0

SettingTheRecordStraight 5 years, 2 months ago

34 of 34 states have ratified marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Let's keep it up!

0

rusty2 5 years, 2 months ago

Freedom to Marry weekFebruary 8 to 14th.

0

Ragingbear 5 years, 2 months ago

Ah. The marriage cycle is complete.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.