Abstinence Criticized

[CamEdwards]

remove the scales from your eyes, Chubby.

Uh-oh. Sorry for the religious reference.

Seriously, I said this this morning, and I'm still waiting for YOUR response.

Again, I haven't mentioned child abuse. I have mentioned my fear that it could lead to consensual incestual marriage, and far more likely polygamous marriage. No less than Richard Posner of the US Court of Appeals (7th Circuit) and Eugene Volokh (who supports gay marriage, by the way) have argued that the slippery slope arguments are real and valid.

Over the course of six pages I've presented reasons why the slippery slope is real and valid, and your only argument has been "that's ridiculous". Why? Show me some legal reasons why this wouldn't open the door to a further redefinition of marriage? Otherwise, please stop using words like "ridiculous" and "silly" when legal scholars far more experienced than you see the validity of the argument.

Can you tell me a reason why other types of marriage wouldn't be allowed by redefining marriage?

[ISiddiqui]

I wonder if people said it would be a slippery slope to polygamy and incest if we let blacks marry whites?

Perhaps Chubby should have restated that he doesn't see any LEGITIMATE non-religious reasons.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

remove the scales from your eyes, Chubby.

Uh-oh. Sorry for the religious reference.

Seriously, I said this this morning, and I'm still waiting for YOUR response.

Can you tell me a reason why other types of marriage wouldn't be allowed by redefining marriage?

Doh, I missed that in trying to catch up on my reading after getting home from work. Sorry, let's see...

Is that slippery slope not already there currently? Can the argument not be made that "Well, man and woman marriages already exist so why should we place a limit on which men and women should be able to get married?"

Can you not already make the argument "Well if I can be married to one woman why can't I be married to more than one? I can have more than one girlfriend can't I?"

By allowing same-sex marriage, you are reinforcing that marriage is between two, non-blood related persons. It doesn't not bring up the slippery slope anymore than we already are with our current "definition".

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I wonder if people said it would be a slippery slope to polygamy and incest if we let blacks marry whites?

Perhaps Chubby should have restated that he doesn't see any LEGITIMATE non-religious reasons.

I agree.

Yes, I see looking back that if I had said that it would have been much more clearer what I was thinking, oops.

As outlined above, I don't see multiple wives or incest being legitimate reasons behind disallowing same-sex marriages.

[AENeuman]

i have been following this site for years (thanks to brother buc) but never really feeled the need to chim in (except on movies) but this is just so rich, plus i had a meeting pushed back.
i'm getting a master in theology and one of the things we always talk about is how un-christ-like christians are. those people that chubby claims control the US and thump bibles don't seem very christian, at least not my version. moreover "those" people are so diffrent from me that i cringe when people dismiss "my" religion because of "them". in most cases i don't believe in that god either.

however, to say religious reasons to answers are not as legitimate as other reasons is absurd. if i say i'm against homosexual activity because it can lead to the extinction of our species i would not be more correct than some xtain response. the means one comes to their opinion should not critized as much as the opinion itself. i too would like to see a moral humanist response, on anything (PETA excluded) that is totally without religious influence or experience. seems to me the experiences of xtainity by chubby precludes him from ever have said response for himself.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

i have been following this site for years (thanks to brother buc) but never really feeled the need to chim in (except on movies) but this is just so rich, plus i had a meeting pushed back.
i'm getting a master in theology and one of the things we always talk about is how un-christ-like christians are. those people that chubby claims control the US and thump bibles don't seem very christian, at least not my version. moreover "those" people are so diffrent from me that i cringe when people dismiss "my" religion because of "them". in most cases i don't believe in that god either.

however, to say religious reasons to answers are not as legitimate as other reasons is absurd. if i say i'm against homosexual activity because it can lead to the extinction of our species i would not be more correct than some xtain response. the means one comes to their opinion should not critized as much as the opinion itself. i too would like to see a moral humanist response, on anything (PETA excluded) that is totally without religious influence or experience. seems to me the experiences of xtainity by chubby precludes him from ever have said response for himself.

while I'm glad I got you into the discussion let me clarify a few things.

- I didn't say christians "control" the US. I said they are in a position of power since they are the "most influential" religious group in this country.
- I'm not dismissing religious reasons just because they are religious, I am dismissing them in that they shouldn't be the sole factor in determining law in this country.

and your last sentence went totally over my head, so I have no idea how to respond (not putting you down, just saying I don't get what you said)

[AENeuman]

Cub, I don't think that even a non-religious moral person in this country can be without some sort of religious influence. getting away from the (my words) crude morality of doing-good-for-heaven, i think there lies a greater reasoning in religious morality. ie cain and abel shows us that it is up to us to take care of one another, and that "care" is relational and responsible, two words that should always be synonymous with religion. again, it isn't so bad that xtains are in charge (someone has to) and that they are making the decisions (the majority rules in this crazy system), but it's that these xtains are not focusing on either relations or their responsibility to prove that love is our greatest means to change.

[yabanci]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Can you tell me a reason why other types of marriage wouldn't be allowed by redefining marriage?

I don't know if the other guy can, but I can. Both incest and polygamy are illegal, which means there is no equal protection issue because it is permissible for the government to treat those groups differently (by not allowing them to marry). If you want to argue that allowing gay marriage might allow persons from those groups to also marry, you first have to make a realistic argument that incest and polygamy are legal or might be legalized (either by repealing the laws -- which won't happen -- or by arguing that they are unconstitutional -- which already has been tested and failed). Until you can make an argument that the incest and polygamy laws are invalid, you have no slippery slope with regard to these groups. At most you have fearmongering.

[MJ4H]

A woman in France recently married a dead man. And she got Chirac's permission first. Let me repeat that: A DEAD MAN.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by yabanci

I don't know if the other guy can, but I can. Both incest and polygamy are illegal, which means there is no equal protection issue because it is permissible for the government to treat those groups differently (by not allowing them to marry). If you want to argue that allowing gay marriage might allow persons from those groups to also marry, you first have to make a realistic argument that incest and polygamy are legal or might be legalized (either by repealing the laws -- which won't happen -- or by arguing that they are unconstitutional -- which already has been tested and failed). Until you can make an argument that the incest and polygamy laws are invalid, you have no slippery slope with regard to these groups. At most you have fearmongering.

much better than I could have ever said, thank you.

AE - I agree that most people's morals have some basis in religion. However, the distinction I am trying to make is that decsions should be made for the morality of the issue and not the religious background of it. I have yet to see one person from another religion chime in that their religion says it's evil therefor we can't have it. As I see it, the religious zealots pushing for thi so hard right now are only doing so because it furthers their beliefs that "they are right" not because "it is right for everyone". I'll use murder as an example, murder is decried againt extensively in christianity to my knowledge but you'll never hear me say "why should it be done away with, it's just for religous reasons" because in my eyes it's not. By outlawing murder, you are doing a greater good which happens to follow relegious belies. In trying to outlaw same-sex marriage people are trying to push "their" religion on al, there is no "greater good" in that. (if that makes sense)

[Cuckoo]

Originally Posted by yabanci

you first have to make a realistic argument that incest and polygamy are legal or might be legalized (either by repealing the laws -- which won't happen -- or by arguing that they are unconstitutional -- which already has been tested and failed). Until you can make an argument that the incest and polygamy laws are invalid, you have no slippery slope with regard to these groups. At most you have fearmongering.

Just curious. Was homosexuality once illegal? How many times was the constitutionality of laws banning homosexual sex challenged before a good many of them were overturned? Sorry, don't mean to fearmonger.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by MattJones4Heisman

A woman in France recently married a dead man. And she got Chirac's permission first. Let me repeat that: A DEAD MAN.

And since I'm on your ignore I can gleefully say YOUR A BIG STUPID HEAD!!!

I'll have to go back over my history books to see all the times we have followed France's lead France has nothing to do with this, sheesh, way to try and threadjack.

[Cuckoo]

I think the rolling eyes is one of the best emoticons. Okay, back to your regular arguing.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Cuckoo

Just curious. Was homosexuality once illegal? How many times was the constitutionality of laws banning homosexual sex challenged before a good many of them were overturned? Sorry, don't mean to fearmonger.

Well shit, the murder laws might be overturned if we don't allow same-sex marriage so by that token we HAVE to allow them with no other thought put into the matter!

[Cuckoo]

Originally Posted by Chubby

Well shit, the murder laws might be overturned if we don't allow same-sex marriage so by that token we HAVE to allow them with no other thought put into the matter!

Oh but you're putting so much thought in already, Chubbs...

[yabanci]

Originally Posted by Cuckoo

Just curious. Was homosexuality once illegal? How many times was the constitutionality of laws banning homosexual sex challenged before a good many of them were overturned? Sorry, don't mean to fearmonger.

No, homosexuality was not illegal. Sodomy was illegal in some states, though it was only enforced in a discriminatory manner. The sodomy laws were overturned recently for good reason. If you think the same might happen to the incest and polygamy laws, please let me hear your legal argument. Once you make that argument, we can then discuss whether the equal protection clause might entitled those groups to marry.

[Cuckoo]

So now if we disagree with homosexual marriage in a message board debate, we have to continually repeat our reasonings, explain them despite the fact that the opposition will never agree with them anyway, and then argue every possible resulting court case to prove our point? Whew! Just trying to get a handle on this...

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by yabanci

No, homosexuality was not illegal. Sodomy was illegal in some states, though it was only enforced in a discriminatory manner. The sodomy laws were overturned recently for good reason. If you think the same might happen to the incest and polygamy laws, please let me hear your legal argument. Once you make that argument, we can then discuss whether the equal protection clause might entitled those groups to marry.

{smartass tone since I agree with yabanci}And by sodomy you mean anal sex, which would mean it was illegal for male/female anal sex as well as homosexual means, no?{/smartass tone...}

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Cuckoo

So now if we disagree with homosexual marriage in a message board debate, we have to continually repeat our reasonings, explain them despite the fact that the opposition will never agree with them anyway, and then argue every possible resulting court case to prove our point? Whew! Just trying to get a handle on this...

It takes two to tango, nice try tho.

[Cuckoo]

Originally Posted by Chubby

It takes two to tango, nice try tho.

For the last time, I won't dance with you.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by yabanci

No, homosexuality was not illegal. Sodomy was illegal in some states, though it was only enforced in a discriminatory manner. The sodomy laws were overturned recently for good reason. If you think the same might happen to the incest and polygamy laws, please let me hear your legal argument. Once you make that argument, we can then discuss whether the equal protection clause might entitled those groups to marry.

Just a factual point - the recent case of the Texas law applied only to homosexual sodomy.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Chubby

Doh, I missed that in trying to catch up on my reading after getting home from work. Sorry, let's see...

Is that slippery slope not already there currently? Can the argument not be made that "Well, man and woman marriages already exist so why should we place a limit on which men and women should be able to get married?"

Can you not already make the argument "Well if I can be married to one woman why can't I be married to more than one? I can have more than one girlfriend can't I?"

By allowing same-sex marriage, you are reinforcing that marriage is between two, non-blood related persons. It doesn't not bring up the slippery slope anymore than we already are with our current "definition".

The difference, Chubby, is that for the first time in our nation's history who is eligible for marriage will be redefined. Who's to say where that new definition should stop, and who's to say the debate won't be opened again.

[AENeuman]

Cub, I argree with you on much of this. But what i have a problem with was your negative image of christianity in general. i like that you have now called the problem people "religious zealots". and you are right about this notion that this need for laws seems to be a need to legitimize their beliefs (manifest destinty anyone?).
but i am still not sure about your argument on the lack of other religions. if there were others would you be more inclined to agree? also, not sure what "decsions should be made for the morality of the issue and not the religious background of it." means. are you saying that religious background is the threat of heaven/hell? or that its something rooted in story or myth? again i think if an xtain is doing something moral for any reason other than out of a response to give love back to god and another then the reasoning is at best flawed, and at worst hearsey. but if one is coming love then i do not think it should matter what or where their influence came from.
btw, i too do not see how the need to discriminate is at all from love. i think there is a giant disconnect between those xtains who think their religion is only a means to an ultimate end, and those who see it as relevant and urgent opportunity. who cares about the promise of heaven if we are wasting the gift of life.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

The difference, Chubby, is that for the first time in our nation's history who is eligible for marriage will be redefined. Who's to say where that new definition should stop, and who's to say the debate won't be opened again.

So therefor we must not open debate or ever change that definition? I disagree with that. Did we use that logic when allowing women to vote?

"Well, who's to say where the new definition of who can vote will stop? Who's to say the debate won't be opened again? How do we know that in the future someone won't start pushing for animals to have the right to vote?"

Come on... Who said our current definition is just or correct?

[yabanci]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

The difference, Chubby, is that for the first time in our nation's history who is eligible for marriage will be redefined.

Actually this is not true. At one point or another, 42 states had laws that made blacks ineligible to marry whites. Thankfully marriage has been "redefined" to allow interracial marriage.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

Cub, I argree with you on much of this. But what i have a problem with was your negative image of christianity in general. i like that you have now called the problem people "religious zealots". and you are right about this notion that this need for laws seems to be a need to legitimize their beliefs (manifest destinty anyone?).
but i am still not sure about your argument on the lack of other religions. if there were others would you be more inclined to agree? also, not sure what "decsions should be made for the morality of the issue and not the religious background of it." means. are you saying that religious background is the threat of heaven/hell? or that its something rooted in story or myth? again i think if an xtain is doing something moral for any reason other than out of a response to give love back to god and another then the reasoning is at best flawed, and at worst hearsey. but if one is coming love then i do not think it should matter what or where their influence came from.
btw, i too do not see how the need to discriminate is at all from love. i think there is a giant disconnect between those xtains who think their religion is only a means to an ultimate end, and those who see it as relevant and urgent opportunity. who cares about the promise of heaven if we are wasting the gift of life.

I guess I base my negative view on christianity on the "non christian christians" as you put it earlier. I base it on people who try and force their views on others. If someone of another religion tried to force their views on me I'd reject them just the same, but in this country (and on this board in particular) I find that religion is christianity because as I said; it IS the most dominant religion in this country. Those in a position of power (not IN power) tend to exercise said power to try to influence all.

I think what I say that most people's moral's have a root in religion, is that it comes from story/myth.

like you said (i think), i have no problem with things being based in religion as long as that isn't the sole purpose behind. to go to war because it is for the good of all (let's say WWII) is fine, to go to that war SIMPLY because it is a religous issue is wrong IMO.

[CamEdwards]

nobody's arguing debate shouldn't be opened. As to whether or not the definition should ever be changed, I'll just refer you back to how women got the right to vote. It wasn't via judicial activism or renegade politicians. It was via a constitutional amendment. Again, it was the will of the people deciding.

What's so wrong with trying to pass a constitutional amendment allowing gay marriage?

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by yabanci

Actually this is not true. At one point or another, 42 states had laws that made blacks ineligible to marry whites. Thankfully marriage has been "redefined" to allow interracial marriage.

{sarcasm}GASP! We've already started sliding down the slippery slope!!! {/sarcasm}

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

nobody's arguing debate shouldn't be opened. As to whether or not the definition should ever be changed, I'll just refer you back to how women got the right to vote. It wasn't via judicial activism or renegade politicians. It was via a constitutional amendment. Again, it was the will of the people deciding.

What's so wrong with trying to pass a constitutional amendment allowing gay marriage?

Is gay marriage currently illegal? What are we amending exactly? I don't see anything in the constitution saying that they can't marry.

[yabanci]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

nobody's arguing debate shouldn't be opened. As to whether or not the definition should ever be changed, I'll just refer you back to how women got the right to vote. It wasn't via judicial activism or renegade politicians. It was via a constitutional amendment. Again, it was the will of the people deciding.

What's so wrong with trying to pass a constitutional amendment allowing gay marriage?

The right to vote can arise only from the constitution, so therefore an amendment was needed to give women the right to vote. The right to equal protection under the law is already in the constitution (as amended).

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by MattJones4Heisman

A woman in France recently married a dead man. And she got Chirac's permission first. Let me repeat that: A DEAD MAN.

Did you bother to read the entire article about this event, or just the sensationalized headline?

If you had read the whole article, you'd know that what this is all about is a law in France that allows widowers to petition for the legal benefits of marriage in cases where it can be shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the couple had intended to marry prior to the death of one of the pair.

[Mac Howard]

Does it have to be consummated?

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by yabanci

If you look at the positions of most of the organizations that strongly oppose gay marriage, you will see that they do in fact want the government to outlaw private, consensual sex between gay people and are very angry that the Supreme Court ruled it can't.

That may or may not be true, but keep in mind that I said people here weren't asking for this.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by yabanci

Until you can make an argument that the incest and polygamy laws are invalid, you have no slippery slope with regard to these groups.

I guess I don't follow your argument. You seem to be saying that polygamy wouldn't be legalized, because it's... illegal. Why couldn't they just change the laws, especially after someone with a good lawyer tries to use gay marriage as a precedent?

Beyond that, there's the bigger picture moral argument. If we're not supposed to be able to tell people who they can and can't marry, don't we at least have to apply that to everyone?

[yabanci]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

I guess I don't follow your argument. You seem to be saying that polygamy wouldn't be legalized, because it's... illegal. Why couldn't they just change the laws, especially after someone with a good lawyer tries to use gay marriage as a precedent?

Beyond that, there's the bigger picture moral argument. If we're not supposed to be able to tell people who they can and can't marry, don't we at least have to apply that to everyone?

No, it has to do with equal protection analysis under constitutional law. The government may classify groups and treat them differently -- it does so all the time. However, such classifications are scrutinized differently under the equal protection clause depending on the type of classificaton. For example, if the classification is based on something like race, sex, or nationality, "strict scrutiny" applies and the classification must be necessary to achieve a compelling government purpose, a very high standard to meet. There is also "intermediate scrutiny" in certain gender cases and what's often referred to as "rational basis" scrutiny for almost everything else. Under rational basis scrutiny, the government need only prove that the classification is rationally related to a legitimate government purpose. Discouraging illegal activity (incest and polygamy) is a legitimate government purpose, and prohibiting such groups to marry is a rational way to discourage that activity, so it's basically an open and shut case. In order to argue that incestuous couples and polygamists should be able to marry, therefore, you first have to make incest and polygamy legal (so the government cannot argue that its legitimate government purpose is discouraging illegal activity). The only way to make incest and polygamy legal is for the legislatures to repeal the laws (which will never happen) or for those laws to be found unconstitutional. That is why I say give me a realistic legal argument that the incest and polygamy laws are unconsititional and then I will listen to your slippery slope arguments.

[Chubby]

Maple - Your argument thus far is... reasons for not allowing:
same sex marriage - may lead to something worse like incest or polyagmy

however

reasons for not allowing:
incest - birth defects, #1 answer
polygamy - wayyyyy too complicated, if wife #2 gives birth to a kid then gets divorced does wife #1 get visitation rights? It's way too messy legally to allow this


so we have actual reasons to keeo incest and polyagmy illegal which eliminates your flimsy "reason" to do away with same sex marriage.

[MJ4H]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Did you bother to read the entire article about this event, or just the sensationalized headline?

If you had read the whole article, you'd know that what this is all about is a law in France that allows widowers to petition for the legal benefits of marriage in cases where it can be shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the couple had intended to marry prior to the death of one of the pair.

Yes I read the whole story. I know what it's about. Doesn't change that she married a DEAD MAN.

[yabanci]

Originally Posted by MattJones4Heisman

Yes I read the whole story. I know what it's about. Doesn't change that she married a DEAD MAN.

it doesn't change the fact that it's irrelevant.

[MJ4H]

It's not irrelevant to me. It's very relevant. It shows how far this marriage idea can be distorted from its traditional definition. That seems pretty relevant to me.

[yabanci]

Originally Posted by MattJones4Heisman

It's not irrelevant to me. It's very relevant. It shows how far this marriage idea can be distorted from its traditional definition. That seems pretty relevant to me.

I meant relevant under state or federal law, not relevant in your own mind.

[MJ4H]

Ah well I wasn't concerned with law when I posted that. Just in making a point that is certainly relevant to this discussion.

[wig]

What does this have to do with gay marriage?

oh, wrong novel.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by MattJones4Heisman

Yes I read the whole story. I know what it's about. Doesn't change that she married a DEAD MAN.

So Marilyn Monroe is now officially a 'free agent?"

[Bubba Wheels]

Well, while the 'new' definition of marriage may open up the phenomena of marrying dead people, let's remember that dead people have been voting as democrats for years.

[Butter]

I like how whenever Cam is beaten in an argument, he just sort of slinks away and never posts in that thread again.

Good job, yabanci!

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by yabanci

Discouraging illegal activity (incest and polygamy) is a legitimate government purpose, and prohibiting such groups to marry is a rational way to discourage that activity, so it's basically an open and shut case ... The only way to make incest and polygamy legal is for the legislatures to repeal the laws (which will never happen) or for those laws to be found unconstitutional. That is why I say give me a realistic legal argument that the incest and polygamy laws are unconsititional and then I will listen to your slippery slope arguments.

But that seems to open a can of worms, since what's to stop a state from simply declaring gay marriage illegal and then using "discouraging illegal activity" as a reason for not recognizing them?

Unless I'm misunderstanding, the logic seems to be circular. You have to recognize gay marriage because it's not illegal, and you can't make it illegal because you have to recognize it. And you don't recognize polygamy because it's illegal, and you don't have to make it legal because ... why, exactly? Other than that society says it should be?

I guess the counter-argument is that banning gay marriage would be unconstitutional, and banning polygamy is not? Is that where the split happens?

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by Chubby

...which eliminates your flimsy "reason" to do away with same sex marriage.

Just to clarify, I'm in favor of gay marriage. I think I've said this several times.

I just don't see it as the black and white issues that so many others seems to. I think the slippery slope argument may be valid and is worth exploring. However, I'm not convinced that it would be a good reason not to allow gay marriage even if it could be shown to be true.

There is room for thought and argument somewhere between the knee-jerk bible-thumping and knee-jerk bible-bashing, you know.

[Butter]

I will say that the chance that marriage could be redefined to allow polygamy is certainly a reasonable thought when discussing redefining marriage. But the only problem I really have with polygamy is when it is done with multiple spouses who are unaware of the polygamy.

Government would sure have a headache when trying to split up assets between a man, an ex-spouse, and that man's other 2 spouses, though.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

I will say that the chance that marriage could be redefined to allow polygamy is certainly a reasonable thought when discussing redefining marriage.

Yeah, I really think that once you allow gay marriage, legal polygamy becomes inevitable. It won't be right away, but eventually it will happen.

Incest is less likely since there's the ability to prove harm there. Same with all the other extreme examples (horse-lovers!) that people like to throw out there in an effort to subtlely lump gays into the "sexual pervert" category.

But here's another direction it could go... what happens when some middle-aged brother/sister combo decide they want to be married. Not because they're in a relationship -- but they don't expect to get married to anyone else, they live together, and they want some of the benefits that married couples get. What happens when they challenge the law? Or any long-term roommates, for that matter?

It sounds like an obvious non-starter -- you can't get married if you're not in a romantic/sexual relationship. That's part of the definition of marriage, right? But so was man/woman. The brother and sister would tell you that they're being discriminated against, just because they aren't doing it (and couldn't legally even if they wanted to). We took the traditional man/woman part out of marriage, what about the "in love" part too? A "couple" that's not really a couple still isn't hurting anyone.

Would that fly in a court? Maybe, maybe not. But there are some parallels, which is why I find the slippery slope argument to be compelling. Once you take a step towards tinkering with the definition of marriage, even a small and good step, someone will want to take one more. And another. How do you draw the line without resorting to arguments like "it's tradition" and "that's not what society wants" (since we've agreed that those shouldn't apply to the gay marriage debate)?

I don't see any easy answers. I do think we're on a slippery slope to making the concept of marriage meaningless, beyond it's various legal/financial implications. And I'm not really sure how you stop that.

And yes, I realize we were on that slope long before the gay marriage debate, with abusive families and quicky divorces. That doesn't make it any easier to like.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Well, while the 'new' definition of marriage may open up the phenomena of marrying dead people, let's remember that dead people have been voting as democrats for years.

Hehe. That's brilliant.

(I live close enough to Chicago to have that tickle my funnybone.)