Straight Marriage Is Illegal Now

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Straight Marriage Is Illegal Now

CapnAndy: Feb 27, 2004; Some teeth long for ripping, gleaming wet from black dog gums. So you keep your eyes closed at the end. You don't want to see such a mouth up close. before the bite, before its oblivion in the goring of your soft parts, the speckled lips will curl back in a whinny of excitement. You just know it.

Kurtofan posted:

Why do conservatives care so much about it being called "civil union" instead of "civil marriage"? I'll never understand that.

A civil union is equal to a civil marriage, but still a separate institution.

Something about that arrangement just makes conservatives feel better about things.

# ? Mar 5, 2014 21:34

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 18, 2024 03:21

Gerund: Sep 12, 2007; He push a man

CapnAndy posted:

A civil union is equal to a civil marriage, but still a separate institution.

Something about that arrangement just makes conservatives feel better about things.

Ask a lesbian widow of the last decade about her visitation rights at St. Bigots about the equality of civil unions.

edit- :raise:

pretty sneaky, sis

Gerund fucked around with this message at 21:38 on Mar 5, 2014

# ? Mar 5, 2014 21:35

Nybble: Jun 28, 2008; praise chuck, raise heck

"Words matter." - both sides, for different reasons.

# ? Mar 5, 2014 21:36

CapnAndy: Feb 27, 2004; Some teeth long for ripping, gleaming wet from black dog gums. So you keep your eyes closed at the end. You don't want to see such a mouth up close. before the bite, before its oblivion in the goring of your soft parts, the speckled lips will curl back in a whinny of excitement. You just know it.

Gerund posted:

Ask a lesbian widow of the last decade about her visitation rights at St. Bigots about the equality of civil unions.

I made a "separate but equal" joke :ssh:

# ? Mar 5, 2014 21:36

thefncrow: Mar 14, 2001

Kurtofan posted:

Why do conservatives care so much about it being called "civil union" instead of "civil marriage"? I'll never understand that.

If gay couples entered into "civil unions", then they're not married, and barring some additional action by legislatures, those would not be treated as equal to marriages. And even if legislatures took those steps, the populace would still inherently understand that they're different, because if they weren't different they'd be called marriages.

Basically, people push for "civil unions" as a fallback against granting marriage for basically the same reasons that the Supreme Court outlined in overturning the "separate but equal" doctrine in Brown v. Board: because separate inherently means unequal.

# ? Mar 5, 2014 21:55

Rhesus Pieces: Jun 27, 2005

Sweeney Tom posted:

National survey released today by WaPo/ABC: 59% support gay marriage (highest ever), 50% say it's guaranteed in the Constitution under equal protection.

The results of that poll are interesting:

Washington Post posted:

Republicans are alone here: They oppose legal gay marriage by 54-40; and they don�t believe the �equal protection� clause guarantees the legal right to marry by 54-38. Majorities of independents and moderates are in the Yes camp on both.

Note the religious breakdown: White evangelical Protestants overwhelmingly oppose gay marriage, by 66-28. By contrast, white non-evangelical Protestants support it by 62-27, and white Catholics support it by 70-26.

This isn't even a religious vs. non-religious argument. It's one very specific and vocal subset of Christianity versus everybody else.

quote:

Meanwhile, opposition to gay marriage among Republicans seems to be concentrated among the Tea Party. According to the Post polling team, Republicans and GOP-leaning independents who support the Tea Party oppose gay marriage by 54-38. By contrast, non-Tea Party Republicans and GOP-leaners support gay marriage by 57-36. Tea Party Republicans are often said to be more libertarian-leaning on social issues than other segments of the GOP base (such as evangelicals), but a majority of them still opposes same-sex marriage.

"Stop calling us bigots! We're a libertarian, anti-tax organization! :qq:

"

Tea party republicans and evangelicals are firmly backed into a corner on this one. Which is somewhat concerning, because when those groups are cornered they feel righteously persecuted and freak out even more.

# ? Mar 5, 2014 22:13

Spalec: Apr 16, 2010

SedanChair posted:

I can't wait for Scalia to weigh in on how now the people themselves have "taken it upon themselves to promote the gay agenda."

Now it's gone to majority support the anti-equality argument changes from " :byodood:

Active Judges/Gay Agenda :byodood:

" to "

Tyranny of the majority oppressing us poor Christians! :byodood:

# ? Mar 5, 2014 22:16

Pasco: Oct 2, 2010

Rhesus Pieces posted:

The results of that poll are interesting:

While I don't doubt the overall results of the poll, it's dangerous to pull out cross-breaks for specific subsections due to rapidly increasing margins of error.

The poll uses a fairly standard "random national sample of 1,002 adults", which sounds small considering it's being used to represent the 300,000,000 population of the US, but which is perfectly statistically viable, with your standard margin of error of 3.5 percentage points (at the 95% confidence interval). These are the sort of numbers you see in the vast majority of opinion polls, unless somebody feels like really splashing out and interviewing ~2,000 people instead, which actually gains you very little.

However, when you start drilling down to cross-breaks such as "White evangelical Protestants" vs "white non-evangelical Protestants" or "white Catholics", your sample size is not necessarily large enough, or is not appropriately weighted to still give a reasonable margin of error. Since I can't actually find the full tables for this poll, these sample sizes could be so small as to render the figures all but meaningless.

The results all fit the standard narrative of the bigoted evangelical Tea Partiers and their hatred of the homos, but just because it feels right doesn't mean you should take the numbers as gospel.

# ? Mar 6, 2014 00:17

Captain_Maclaine: Sep 30, 2001; Every moment that I'm alive, I pray for death!

CapnAndy posted:

A civil union is equal to a civil marriage, but still a separate institution.

Something about that arrangement just makes conservatives feel better about things.

Hey, last time around it bought them almost sixty years of shoving back the tide (going by the really simplistic yardstick of Plessy v. Ferguson to Brown v. Board). Not that surprising they'd try it again.

# ? Mar 6, 2014 00:41

Lycus: Aug 5, 2008; Half the posters in this forum have been made up. This website is a goddamn ghost town.

Most conservatives don't really want gay people to have civil unions either. The pro-civil union people are mostly right-leaning moderates that want to stem the tide.

# ? Mar 6, 2014 02:06

FlamingLiberal: Jan 18, 2009; Would you like to play a game?

Lycus posted:

Most conservatives don't really want gay people to have civil unions either. The pro-civil union people are mostly right-leaning moderates that want to stem the tide.

Pretty much this. Civil unions are kind of akin to the people who have pushed 'intelligent design' as a 'compromise' between proponents of evolution and those who think we should only teach creationism.

# ? Mar 6, 2014 03:09

UltimoDragonQuest: Oct 5, 2011

Civil unions are laughable policy today, but were a workable compromise for many years. If you go back to March 2013 there were 9 marriage states and 8 civil union states. If they aren't an elected official I'm not going to do much more than roll my eyes at someone who is a few years behind the massive shift in law and opinion since 2012. They probably deserve at a full year under Windsor before being lumped in with segregationists if they're on board with everything else but think marriage is a magic word.

# ? Mar 6, 2014 07:05

Nth Doctor: Sep 7, 2010; Darkrai used Dream Eater!
It's super effective!

We're in the last day of testimony in Michigan.
Live comments here.

quote:

A step back to explain where we are for those who may be just joining:

The main question being addressed through most of this trial has been: Are children of same sex couples placed at a disadvantage?

A number of scholars called by the plaintiffs earlier in the trial testified that numerous social science studies show no difference in outcomes for children of gay parents vs. heterosexual parents.

The state in turn called witnesses casting doubt on those studies.

Economist David Allen today is reiterating some of those claims for the state today, based on Canadian census numbers, which he said offer more precise data specifically identifying same-sex couples and instances of divorce.

quote:

Back for cross-examination of Doug Allen.

Plaintiff's attorney Kenneth Mogill asked Allen to limit his answers to "yes" or "no."

quote:

Mogill brings Regnerus study again.
Regnerus, a sociologist, testified earlier in the case on his study showing disadvantages for children of gay parents. His study was criticized by previous witnesses over "apples-to-oranges" comparisons.
Mogill asks Allen if he's ever criticized the study.
Allen concedes he has, saying sample size wasn't large enough.

quote:

Mogill fighting to get Allen to answer whether it was reasonable or unreasonable in the Regnerus' study to include praents who the child may never have lived with.

Allen resists, eventually says "If I had to choose, I'd say it was reasonable," in order to keep sample size high.

quote:

Mogill: "Have you ever said that solid evidence does exist on this question?"

Allen: "I don�t recall that I have, I may have."

quote:

Allen, although his study indicates lower graduation rates for children of gay parents, said earlier that not enough solid evidence exists to justify a state changing it's definition of marriage.

quote:

Still on sample size "You need a sample size of 800, but ultimately it�s data dependent." - Allen

# ? Mar 6, 2014 17:51

CuddleCryptid: Jan 11, 2013; Things could be going better

When can we expect a ruling on the Michigan case?

Also, I wonder what defines the "child of a same-sex couple". If you're including only biological children raised from birth by the couple then that is one thing, but if you are including all the adopted children then, well, adopted children can have issues whether with a SS couple or heterosexual. So it doesn't seem quite parallel.

E. Can't directly quote, but info from Detroit New's live reporter

Allen, second statistics expert, says there is a negative effect on kids in SS households but admits that it is not statistically significant when the education level of the parents are the same as their heterosexual counterparts.

Allen then, when asked about any biases due to his association with the anti-gay marriage Ruth Institute (slogan: One man One woman For life) tells the court that he is not biased but if homosexuals don't repent then they will go to hell. Mogill asks him if he believes that engaging in homosexual acts causes eternal damnation. Allen says "Not repentant, yes".

State rested. Closing arguments at 10am.

Wow, the state sure knows how to pick them

CuddleCryptid fucked around with this message at 21:22 on Mar 6, 2014

# ? Mar 6, 2014 19:31

CuddleCryptid: Jan 11, 2013; Things could be going better

Looking up the Ruth Institute, I'm unsurprised to find it incredibly snide and dismissive towards all of this. "The Victims of the Sexual Revolution", seriously? How did the state think someone tied to this was useful in court?

# ? Mar 6, 2014 21:30

Nth Doctor: Sep 7, 2010; Darkrai used Dream Eater!
It's super effective!

Thanks for tapping in.

DreamShipWrecked posted:

Allen then, when asked about any biases due to his association with the anti-gay marriage Ruth Institute (slogan: One man One woman For life) tells the court that he is not biased but if homosexuals don't repent then they will go to hell. Mogill asks him if he believes that engaging in homosexual acts causes eternal damnation. Allen says "Not repentant, yes".

This is utterly amazing. :allears:

Closing arguments are set for tomorrow at 10am, and the ruling may be a few days later.

quote:

Testimony has concluded.
Closing arguments begin tomorrow at 10 a.m., starting with plaintiff's, then Oakland County Clerk Lisa Brown - who is a defendant but takes the side of the plaintiffs, then the state.
Court adjourned.

I can't wait to read about what Lisa says. She already exposed that the AG sent an order to the clerks not to issue licenses should this case have been settled back in October in her testimony.

# ? Mar 6, 2014 21:44

CuddleCryptid: Jan 11, 2013; Things could be going better

The best part is that Allen spent the first half-hour going off on Rosenfield and talking about he wasn't biased like Rosenfield was, then BAM gays go to hell.

E. To be fair, his views in that respect wouldn't have been relevant if he had just stuck to data and done his job as an economist. But he made his whole speech about how everyone but him was biased, then it became relevant.

CuddleCryptid fucked around with this message at 21:54 on Mar 6, 2014

# ? Mar 6, 2014 21:51

samurai slowdown: Jun 11, 2006; POWER UP

The Ruth Institute was added to Southern Poverty Law Center's list of anti-gay hate groups last week. It's a shame that the plaintiffs probably weren't aware, because they could have had even more fun with him on the stand. :allears:

# ? Mar 6, 2014 22:43

fade5: May 31, 2012; by exmarx

DreamShipWrecked posted:

Allen then, when asked about any biases due to his association with the anti-gay marriage Ruth Institute (slogan: One man One woman For life) tells the court that he is not biased but if homosexuals don't repent then they will go to hell. Mogill asks him if he believes that engaging in homosexual acts causes eternal damnation. Allen says "Not repentant, yes".

State rested. Closing arguments at 10am.

DreamShipWrecked posted:

The best part is that Allen spent the first half-hour going off on Rosenfield and talking about he wasn't biased like Rosenfield was, then BAM gays go to hell.

E. To be fair, his views in that respect wouldn't have been relevant if he had just stuck to data and done his job as an economist. But he made his whole speech about how everyone but him was biased, then it became relevant.

I'm happy he was willing to say that in open court, but does he realize that he pretty much blew up his own argument by admitting that? :psyduck:

I'm not sure if it affects the case legally, but it's obvious he's biased as hell against gay people, so the judge probably won't give very much (if any) weight to his testimony.

# ? Mar 6, 2014 23:07

Ian McLean: Sep 9, 2012; statpedia.org
Post Stats on Anything

Somebody fucked around with this message at 15:28 on Mar 7, 2014

# ? Mar 7, 2014 04:03

samurai slowdown: Jun 11, 2006; POWER UP

Ian McLean posted:

https://www.facebook.com/notes/divine-pharaoh/a-scenario-for-a-utopian-society/939453186184

Do we gay marry the service robots? :confused:

# ? Mar 7, 2014 04:33

Chokes McGee: Aug 7, 2008; This is Urotsuki.

DreamShipWrecked posted:

Allen then, when asked about any biases due to his association with the anti-gay marriage Ruth Institute (slogan: One man One woman For life) tells the court that he is not biased but if homosexuals don't repent then they will go to hell. Mogill asks him if he believes that engaging in homosexual acts causes eternal damnation. Allen says "Not repentant, yes".

Well, uh. At least he didn't perjure himself! That's something, I guess.

# ? Mar 7, 2014 05:05

paragon1: Nov 22, 2010; FULL COMMUNISM NOW

I don't see why all this talk of gay divorce rates should matter when hetero marriage has the odds of success of a loving coin flip. It's ridiculous.

# ? Mar 7, 2014 05:13

Vahakyla: May 3, 2013

Because if courts are to decide something, they have to do it this way. No matte how common knowledge, even if everyone saw the defendant pull a gun in live TV and shoot a person, both sides argument still have to be heard and considered. How much weight they eventually get is another matter.

But the judge can't just go "lol like the have anything relevant to say, let's skip this poo poo".

Or he can. But it is ethically wrong.

# ? Mar 7, 2014 10:04

cafel: Mar 29, 2010; This post is hurting the economy!

Vahakyla posted:

Or he can. But it is ethically wrong.

Ethical, no. Hilarious? Yes.

# ? Mar 7, 2014 10:05

computer parts: Nov 18, 2010; PLEASE CLAP

paragon1 posted:

I don't see why all this talk of gay divorce rates should matter when hetero marriage has the odds of success of a loving coin flip. It's ridiculous.

Divorce rates in general are not metricked very well.

# ? Mar 7, 2014 13:29

Nth Doctor: Sep 7, 2010; Darkrai used Dream Eater!
It's super effective!

Get ready for closing arguments mother(and same gendered father)fuckers :woop:

Plaintiffs closing presents first
Lisa Brown, a defendant and Oakland County Clerk (whose office would be the one handling Rowse and Deboer's marriage license) will be giving a closing argument in favor of the plaintiffs
The state will close last, presumably with a bunch of Mormon professors pointing and shouting "GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYS".

e: grammar and the first quote dump

quote:

Plaintiffs� attorney Kenneth Mogill is offering his closing arguments. He began with:
�The promise of equality is the promise of America.�

"There is utterly no rational basis for Michigan�s ban of same sex marriage." Mogill

Testimony over eight days in the trial revolved primarily around studies comparing academic and health outcomes for children of gay and heterosexual couples.

"No other group in society is required to establish parenting competency in order to be married," Mogill said.

"They want to try to cast this issue as a social science experiment," said plaintiffs' attorney Mogill about state's witnesses.

Gay and lesbian couples exist, said attorney Mogill, and "the question of whether they are entitled to the same rights as any other families goes much deeper than any social science expereiment."

Have more quotes!

quote:

�As a matter of law, (marriage) is an entirely gender-neutral institution with respect to rights and obligations.� -Mogill
I ask the court to consider the testimony, consider the credibility, consider the opened mindedness or the bigotry in the testimony,"

Recall from yesterday:

quote:

Allen then, when asked about any biases due to his association with the anti-gay marriage Ruth Institute (slogan: One man One woman For life) tells the court that he is not biased but if homosexuals don't repent then they will go to hell. Mogill asks him if he believes that engaging in homosexual acts causes eternal damnation. Allen says "Not repentant, yes".

quote:

"Denial of the right to marry for same-sex couples is a form of discrimination that we can no longer tolerate." -Mogill

Mogill is done, Lisa Brown's lawyer is up:

quote:

"Her oath of office does not permit her to discriminate against any couple."

He said she'd be ready to issue marriage licenses "as soon as she is able to."

"The state and its experts have engaged in what I would call breathtaking hypocrisy." -Pitt

�The right to marry the person of one�s own choice is so rooted in our concept of liberty that county clerks may not interfere.� - Pitt

Nth Doctor fucked around with this message at 16:59 on Mar 7, 2014

# ? Mar 7, 2014 16:32

Nostalgia4Infinity: Feb 27, 2007; 10,000 YEARS WASN'T ENOUGH LURKING

�Is it accurate that you believe the consequence of engaging in homosexual acts is a separation from God and eternal damnation?� Mogill asked the state�s expert, then added, �in other words, they�re going to hell?�

�Without repentance, yes,� answered the expert, Canadian economist Douglas Allen, the last witness to testify on behalf of the state in a trial that could make Michigan the 18th state to legalize gay marriage.

What a quality use of taxpayer money :allears:

# ? Mar 7, 2014 16:56

Nth Doctor: Sep 7, 2010; Darkrai used Dream Eater!
It's super effective!

Nostalgia4Infinity posted:

�Is it accurate that you believe the consequence of engaging in homosexual acts is a separation from God and eternal damnation?� Mogill asked the state�s expert, then added, �in other words, they�re going to hell?�

�Without repentance, yes,� answered the expert, Canadian economist Douglas Allen, the last witness to testify on behalf of the state in a trial that could make Michigan the 18th state to legalize gay marriage.

What a quality use of taxpayer money

The associate pastor at my church is gay, and married, and has an adopted son. This will certainly be news to him.

# ? Mar 7, 2014 17:04

Jarmak: Jan 24, 2005

It's never occurred to me before, but regardless of the argument of discrimination in regards to sexual orientation, how is same sex marriage not a slam dunk discrimination due to sex case?

How does setting requirements about the sex of participants involved in a civil function not automatically become a strict scrutiny case?

# ? Mar 7, 2014 17:17

Nth Doctor: Sep 7, 2010; Darkrai used Dream Eater!
It's super effective!

quote:

Oakland County Clerk Lisa Brown's attorney Michale Pitt:

�Clerk Brown says: Now is the time to act.
�The evidence that the plaintiffs submitted was sufficient, common sense. I think it would be an error for the court to accept the state�s fallback position that the court should be cautious with this.�

The state plans to request a stay to prevent immediate gay marriage pending possible appeal if the judge rules against the ban.

Pitt is trying to offer an early argument against a stay, and started to bring up a 6th Circuit Appeals case related to radioactive material.

Judge Friedman said it's early for that, but allowed him to make his point that being denied marriage licenses can have negative effect on people's health because of spousal insurance coverage.

He let him finish making the argument that "time is of the essence,� and that Brown should be allowedd to grant licenses as early as possible.

The State is up now:

quote:

"There�s a lot of emotion surrounding this issue. And it would be very easy to get lost in that emotion."

She said the case as about the question of whether there was any rational basis for voters to pass the marriage ban.

"It is a rational thing to believe that it is a good thing to a child to have both a mom and a dad."

She said it's rational for to want to promote that ideal in society and that "it is rational to proceed with caution."

She said 2.7 million people voted for the ban and that plaintiff's could not show that none of those voters had a rational basis for the decision.

"Because there are rational reasons for it, the marriage amendment is not unconstitutional."

"The fact of the matter is that men and women are different. Mother and fathers are not interchangeable. And there are certainly not dispensable." -state attorney Heyse

# ? Mar 7, 2014 17:19

Nth Doctor: Sep 7, 2010; Darkrai used Dream Eater!
It's super effective!

quote:

"This case is not about religious beliefs of the state�s witnesses. It�s about data, science. The fact that a person may have deeply held religious beliefs does not mean that they can�t be an objective scientist."

loving

# ? Mar 7, 2014 17:25

Nintendo Kid: Aug 4, 2011; by Smythe

Jarmak posted:

It's never occurred to me before, but regardless of the argument of discrimination in regards to sexual orientation, how is same sex marriage not a slam dunk discrimination due to sex case?

How does setting requirements about the sex of participants involved in a civil function not automatically become a strict scrutiny case?

It is preferable that it continue to be prosecuted under the terms of protecting sexual orientation, because that helps build up justification for protecting sexual orientation in other fields.

# ? Mar 7, 2014 17:31

Nth Doctor: Sep 7, 2010; Darkrai used Dream Eater!
It's super effective!

quote:

Heyse wrapping up:

"It was the vote of the people, and that decision should stand."

"This issue is likely to be on the ballot soon so why not let the people decide."

quote:

Mogill had five minutes to rebut, but got up and said the state made no good legal arguments and that there was no need to rebut.

Have there been any mic drop moments like this in the other gay marriage cases? Because god drat hat was harsh.

quote:

Judge Bernard Friedman making a decision:
"I have got a lot of reading to do. I have got a lot of decision making to do...

"I have to go through it. It�s going to take a lot of time."

"I anticipate the week after next."

"Hopefully, we will put it together so that everybody understands it."

quote:

Rowse and DeBoer are expected to speak outside the courthouse.

# ? Mar 7, 2014 18:15

SubponticatePoster: Aug 9, 2004; Every day takes figurin' out all over again how to fuckin' live.; Slippery Tilde

I'm waiting for the Utah case. I want to hear the stupid arguments our "I lost the primary election but got the job because the other guy was as crooked as a dog's hind leg" AG comes up with :allears:

They've changed their reasons like 3 times now and each one was dumber than the last.

So jealous of those people who paid all that money for law school and their strategy consists of "throwing poo poo at the wall to see if anything sticks." :laugh:

# ? Mar 7, 2014 18:34

PleasingFungus: Oct 10, 2012; idiot asshole bitch who should fuck off

computer parts posted:

Divorce rates in general are not metricked very well.

Huh. Can you tell me more about the problems with measuring divorce rates? I'd like to know more, and it's at least tangentially relevant to this thread.

# ? Mar 7, 2014 18:35

CuddleCryptid: Jan 11, 2013; Things could be going better

Nth Doctor posted:

Have there been any mic drop moments like this in the other gay marriage cases? Because god drat hat was harsh.

Fully expect the couple's speech just being the two of them going "OOHHHH" into the mics.

But seriously, that is a pretty ballsy move. I guess they're feeling pretty good about their case.

# ? Mar 7, 2014 18:36

Nth Doctor: Sep 7, 2010; Darkrai used Dream Eater!
It's super effective!

DreamShipWrecked posted:

Fully expect the couple's speech just being the two of them going "OOHHHH" into the mics.

But seriously, that is a pretty ballsy move. I guess they're feeling pretty good about their case.

God I wish.

quote:

Reporters and photographers rushed around plaintiffs Jayne Rowse and April DeBoer when they walked out.

DeBoer started to break into tears as she said "We hope that we will be on the right side of history as well as Michigan being on the right side of history."

If they are eventually allowed to get legally married, said Rowse, "We�ll probably throw some big party and announce it to the world."

"Our main goal is to protect our kids and give everybody equal rights," she said.

# ? Mar 7, 2014 19:29

Alchenar: Apr 9, 2008

PleasingFungus posted:

Huh. Can you tell me more about the problems with measuring divorce rates? I'd like to know more, and it's at least tangentially relevant to this thread.

One of the most obvious ones is that the majority of people who get divorced get married again (not to each other) relatively soon afterwards - they don't give up on marriage, just marriage to that person.

# ? Mar 7, 2014 19:32

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 18, 2024 03:21

cruft: Oct 25, 2007

PleasingFungus posted:

Huh. Can you tell me more about the problems with measuring divorce rates? I'd like to know more, and it's at least tangentially relevant to this thread.

The summary is: it was never 50%, the actual number is difficult to measure, but best guess is between 11% and 33%.

Here's some more in-depth analysis:

http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1989124,00.html
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/d/divorce.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/19/health/19divo.html?_r=0

# ? Mar 7, 2014 21:48

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Straight Marriage Is Illegal Now

«‹›609 »