Gay Marriages

Fesuni Chopsui · Post by **Fesuni Chopsui** » May 2, 2003, 4:44 pm

Recently an organization called the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund got 7 gay couples to file lawsuits against the state of New Jersey for not allowing them to have the same rights as heterosexual married couples.

What do you think? Should same sex-marriages be legal across the nation, on a case by case system or should states decide for themselves? (Hint: If you are a really -smart- republican, you'd say states should decide for themselves, but hey who said there were any smart republicans in Congress and/or the White House!

)

Post by **Sylvus** » May 2, 2003, 4:49 pm

Sure, go nuts. Get it, nuts? Har har!

But seriously, I don't see why it's even an issue. I can see why some people would be against gay people getting married in some churches or temples or whatever, if their belief system tells them that homosexuality is wrong. But as far as I know, being legally recognized as a married couple has nothing to do with any religious institution so not allowing a government official to marry a gay couple is ludicrous. Separation of Church and State, and so forth...

masteen · Post by **masteen** » May 2, 2003, 4:53 pm

I am a Republican, and I think they should be legal. The gov't needs to stay out of the private lives of its citizens, unless there is a compelling interest to do so (child abuse, ect.)

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » May 2, 2003, 4:53 pm

for starters marriage is not an agreement with anybody and god, as far as it is relevant in this conversation.

it is an agreement between 2 people and the local municipality. ie, all that is required is that you go to a 'justice of the peace' and file the county paperwork. so nobody needs to bring their religion's take on marriage into the discussion, because it simply isn't relevant.

if you dont want your church to marry gay people, hey that is something for your church to decide.

i personally don't have a problem w/ gay marriage. I think it makes some things like insurance beneficiary status much more manageable for them, as well as 'spousal' benefits etc. you can call it something like 'domestic partnership' if you want, doesnt matter.

i do think they should be able to take advantage of many of the same financial and legal benefits that married heterosexuals (as well as financial and legal detriments) have access too.

so yeah fine w/ me.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » May 2, 2003, 4:55 pm

/shrug

Nonissue here. Do what you like.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » May 2, 2003, 4:56 pm

That being said, Voro, I also don't think that it's the place of the federal gov't to cram this idea down the throats of our more conservative states.

Fesuni Chopsui · Post by **Fesuni Chopsui** » May 2, 2003, 4:58 pm

masteen wrote:That being said, Voro, I also don't think that it's the place of the federal gov't to cram this idea down the throats of our more conservative states.

I agree...it is quite clear there are states in this country that do not want to legalize gay marriages, so why should anyone force them to?

masteen · Post by **masteen** » May 2, 2003, 5:01 pm

The poll question leaves it unclear if you're asking if they should be legal at all or if you mean that the fed. gov't should mandate their legality.

Fesuni Chopsui · Post by **Fesuni Chopsui** » May 2, 2003, 5:09 pm

Should they be legal anywhere and in your response to the question (if you make a post), specify to what extend you want them legalized heh

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » May 2, 2003, 5:12 pm

I wonder how long till the Confederates rise up and take on the Yanks again!

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » May 2, 2003, 5:15 pm

Of course gays and lesbians should be allowed to be married, the government is predjutice against them just as they were racist in the past, 50 years from now people will laugh at the fact that we did not allow gay marrage and call us assholes, similar to our views of segregation in the 60s.

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » May 2, 2003, 5:31 pm

please no, not this thread again.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » May 2, 2003, 5:35 pm

I don't think they should be able to because Jesus wasn't gay and we should all try to follow His example.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » May 2, 2003, 5:53 pm

masteen wrote:That being said, Voro, I also don't think that it's the place of the federal gov't to cram this idea down the throats of our more conservative states.

problem is, if people are going to be able to file their taxes as married. Then it will fuck up their state return if they are forced to file as individuals, etc.

i certainly think that there is a lot of merit to your point Masteen. I'm just thinking in terms of insurance, tax, and estate settlements, and it seems like having a law that applies only partially may not really address the problem.

but on the other hand, since it is not the Federal Government who grants marriage licenses, perhaps it should simply be a local decision.

Raistin · Post by **Raistin** » May 2, 2003, 6:13 pm

They are stupid to get married anyways. Stay single and dodge the fucking tax.

On a sidenote. I could careless what they or anyone do. What it comes down to what marrage is. Its a form that came from a religion. What ever they belong to, I guess accepts gays. So its up to the churches,not the gov.

So yes it includes religion. Has nothing to do with the gov.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » May 2, 2003, 6:14 pm

kyoukan wrote:I don't think they should be able to because Jesus wasn't gay and we should all try to follow His example.

Jesus wasn't gay?

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » May 2, 2003, 6:22 pm

Raistin wrote:
So yes it includes religion. Has nothing to do with the gov.

so if you collect an insurance check because your spouse was killed on the job, it is disbursed by whatever church you belong to?

your tax returns go through church offices for approval in lieu of the IRS?

the main reason gays want "legal" marriage is for financial reasons. There are financial situations where being married is extremely advantageous.

It is not a religious issue. You can get legally married without consent of a church. YOu cannot be (legally) married without the consent of the government.

VariaVespasa · Post by **VariaVespasa** » May 2, 2003, 10:22 pm

I'm in favor. They've got just as much right to lose half their stuff in the divorce as anyone else!

(Yeah yeah I stole that, shaddap.)

*Hugs*
Varia

Avestan · Post by **Avestan** » May 2, 2003, 11:10 pm

I really could give a shit about this issue, but here is the argument I have heard against.

Until there is irrefutable proof that homosexuality is genetic as opposed to something that is learned or caused by some kind of trauma, there is something to be said for not allowing it to be completely mainstream. By accepting it in all forms, we might be encouraging more people to choose this path or at the very least make it easier for someone to accept this as a lifestyle.

Why is this bad? A lot of people would say it is not natural. . .accoring to the bible. . .or just genetics, I don't really care. We survive by heterosexual sex and there is something to be said for ol fashioned man - woman relationships (more to be said about man - woman - woman - woman - woman relationships but thats another topic).

The question comes down to if we would actually cause more homosexuality in society by supporting this. I think there is a chance this is true, I just don't care enough one way or the other.

So, I am totaly neutral in this argument, but I see the points of both sides and won't really change until I see some kind of scientific, genetic proof about the cause of homosexuality. That may never come, and that is fine with me.

rhyae · Post by **rhyae** » May 2, 2003, 11:42 pm

all for it, but its more wedding gifts to buy and stupid bridesmaids gowns to wear

Braxter · Post by **Braxter** » May 3, 2003, 2:29 am

rhyae wrote:all for it, but its more wedding gifts to buy and stupid bridesmaids gowns to wear

*groomsmaid's gowns*

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » May 3, 2003, 10:55 am

being homosexual is not "bad" or "wrong" it is just the way you are born, weather you are open or closed with it (such as the guy in braveheart, and the king of morocco)
so there is no good argument you can possibly make that does not allow homosexuals to have the same rights as anyone else. (unless there into little kids like michael jackson)

Krimson Klaw · Post by **Krimson Klaw** » May 3, 2003, 12:10 pm

kyoukan wrote:I don't think they should be able to because Jesus wasn't gay and we should all try to follow His example.

Well said.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » May 5, 2003, 12:38 pm

Nay. It is a deviant sexual activity. I have said this before and I will say it again. If same sex marriages are allowed, then Searyx is going to file a lsawsuit saying that he should be able to marry his dog and receive the benefits of a married couple. Marriage is for procreation. You have no possible way to have a legal marriage and procreate if you are gay. You should not have the same financial breaks that were meant to help people who are attempting to raise a family.

I would never discriminate against someone for a job or credit or anything along those lines because of their race, creed, sexuality, or anything else, but financial breaks for marriage is NOT an inalienable right.

miir · Post by **miir** » May 5, 2003, 1:12 pm

It is a deviant sexual activity

Marriage has nothing to do with deviant sexual behaviour.
Homosexual and Heterosexual marriage is based on love and commitment.
Same sex married couples engage in less sexual activity than non commited homosexuals.

Marriage is for procreation

Intercourse is for procreation.

You have no possible way to have a legal marriage and procreate if you are gay

What the fuck are you talking about?
It's not illegal to procreate out of wedlock.
No other species on this planet requires a piece of paper from the government that allows them to procreate.

You should not have the same financial breaks that were meant to help people who are attempting to raise a family.

So childless-by-choice couples should not be allowed to file jointly?
If you have a vasectomy or get your tubes tied do you waive your eligibilty to receive the 'financial breaks' that married couples receive?
Should married men with narrow urethras be eligible less of the benefits that other married couples receive?

Marriage =! procreation

Your logic is flawed.

financial breaks for marriage is NOT an inalienable right.

Answer me one question.
Financially, how is a childless-by-choice couple any different from a same sex couple?

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » May 5, 2003, 1:53 pm

/wave Marriage Penelty

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » May 5, 2003, 3:47 pm

You can paint this any color you want, but it is still just sa morally wrong to engage in homosexual acts as it would be to engage in prostitution or any other deviant sexual act. Why is prostitution illegal? There are laws and guidelines that people have to live by in order to have a functioning society. If being gay is encouraged by society, then you are going to have problems down the road. You do realize that gay couples cannot procreate naturally with each other right? You can pick apart pieces of my post, but you do understand this concept?

You are fighting for the wrong reasons to start with. This is all about financial reasons....it has zero to do with anything else.

Acies · Post by **Acies** » May 5, 2003, 3:57 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:You can paint this any color you want, but it is still just sa morally wrong to engage in homosexual acts as it would be to engage in prostitution or any other deviant sexual act. Why is prostitution illegal? There are laws and guidelines that people have to live by in order to have a functioning society. If being gay is encouraged by society, then you are going to have problems down the road. You do realize that gay couples cannot procreate naturally with each other right? You can pick apart pieces of my post, but you do understand this concept?

You are fighting for the wrong reasons to start with. This is all about financial reasons....it has zero to do with anything else.

Actually, according to a few male gay couples I know, sex from the recieving end is wonderful (I know, I question this too). Apparently, a gland that is displaced deeper and down more in women is right there for us, causing arousal when stimulated, so on, etc.
As for the "making of a baby", they can adopt. The world population is too large right now anyway, mostly due to people who "can" procreate doing so in brobdingnagian proportions.

miir · Post by **miir** » May 5, 2003, 3:59 pm

Kilmoll, your ignorance and homophobia are clouding your logic.

Same sex marriages have nothing to do with deviant sexual behaviour.

it is still just sa morally wrong to engage in homosexual acts as it would be to engage in prostitution or any other deviant sexual act. Why is prostitution illegal?

Prostitution is illegal.
Being a homosexual is not.

Prostitution is a choice.
Homosexuality is not.

I don't have any hard facts, but I'd be willing to bet that deviant sexual behaviour is more common amongst single, heterosexual males than it is amongst monogamous same sex couples.

You do realize that gay couples cannot procreate naturally with each other right?

What difference does it make?
Since when is a marriage license a license to procreate?
You do not require a marriage license to procreate and you are not required to procreate after receiving a marriage license.

The 2 are not mutually exclusive.
The whole basis of your argument is based on a flawed assumption.

miir · Post by **miir** » May 5, 2003, 4:03 pm

If being gay is encouraged by society, then you are going to have problems down the road.

What fucking century are you living in?

Close minded, ignorant fucks said the same thing about letting women vote and work.
The same things were said about letting blacks breed with whites.

Your attitudes and views are archaic.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » May 5, 2003, 4:14 pm

kilmoll is unable to differentiate his personal religious views from governmental policy.

kilmoll, your "moral" view on the situation is irrelevant.

if homosexuality was illegal then you would have a valid premise.

it is not. the issue is should these people have the same financial rights that heterosexual people have. And it isnt about the marriage 'penalty'. It is about more substantial sums of money than that.

And of course Kilmoll has a problem with the fact that it is about money.

YOu are familiar with this country right? What is wrong with somebody's hard earned money over a lifetime being distributed in accordance with their wishes? (estate benefits, insurance benefits, etc)?

masteen · Post by **masteen** » May 5, 2003, 4:23 pm

From what I've seen, marriage is all about deviant sex acts...

miir · Post by **miir** » May 5, 2003, 4:25 pm

masteen wrote:From what I've seen, marriage is all about deviant sex acts...

Is your wife aware of this?

masteen · Post by **masteen** » May 5, 2003, 4:26 pm

miir wrote:
masteen wrote:From what I've seen, marriage is all about deviant sex acts...
Is your wife aware of this?

Wife #2 and Wife #3 are, but Wife #1 is such a prude...

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » May 5, 2003, 4:35 pm

As long as not one single dime came from my taxes or other contributions, then I would not have a problem. This is not the case though. I have serious issues with other parts of what I work damn hard for going towards supporting people that I do not wish to support....and I sure as fuck don't want it going to support a marriage that is not natural.

You show me any religion that embraces homosexuality and considers it a normal act. Soddom and Gomorrah had a society that was much like what is becoming common today. It is just a matter of time before it all comes back around.

What really surprises me is that the supporters of this are also the people who think the US is basically hated by middle eastern countries because of our lifestyles (and that we support Israel). How can you twist and turn shit to siut yourselves every other day and remember where you really stand?

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » May 5, 2003, 4:38 pm

Kilmoll, one more time:

religious endorsement of this is IRRELEVANT.

welcome to the United States.

Acies · Post by **Acies** » May 5, 2003, 4:42 pm

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:As long as not one single dime came from my taxes or other contributions, then I would not have a problem. This is not the case though. I have serious issues with other parts of what I work damn hard for going towards supporting people that I do not wish to support....and I sure as fuck don't want it going to support a marriage that is not natural.

You show me any religion that embraces homosexuality and considers it a normal act. Soddom and Gomorrah had a society that was much like what is becoming common today. It is just a matter of time before it all comes back around.

What really surprises me is that the supporters of this are also the people who think the US is basically hated by middle eastern countries because of our lifestyles (and that we support Israel). How can you twist and turn shit to siut yourselves every other day and remember where you really stand?

Show me any organized religon that condems homosexuality that does not have a historical past of violence, wrongfulness, hypocracy or evil.
Kilmoll, what I think you fail to understand is that love is not something you can choose. If you love a man and are attracted to one, then it is natural.
If you feel there is a problem with one man and another mega fucking, then you need to take it up with god himself. Obviously, he could have prevented it. And despite what dogma would have us believe, homosexuals are not going to hell by default, as it is not in the ten commandments or a deadly sin.

miir · Post by **miir** » May 5, 2003, 4:43 pm

As long as not one single dime came from my taxes or other contributions, then I would not have a problem. This is not the case though. I have serious issues with other parts of what I work damn hard for going towards supporting people that I do not wish to support

Please explain how you deserve more say on how your tax money is spent than a tax paying homosexual. Also, explain to me how a same sex couple is a tax burden.

You're starting sound like a KKK member saying he doesn't want any of those niggers to get his tax money.

You show me any religion that embraces homosexuality and considers it a normal act.

Religion != government

Soddom and Gomorrah had a society that was much like what is becoming common today. It is just a matter of time before it all comes back around.

Never pictured you as a holy roller... but I'm not really surprised.
You wouldn't happen to be pentecostal, would you?

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » May 5, 2003, 4:45 pm

I voted "Don't Care" because even male/female marriages bother me. I hate the whole legal part of them.

I don't see a reason why any two people can't enter into a contract which is what marriage is.

Marriage leaves a bad taste in my mouth and not because I don't think two people can love each other and stay together. I think if new couples treated Marriage like a legal contract we'd have less marriages and less divorces.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » May 5, 2003, 4:48 pm

Kilmoll, your opinion and belief system went the way of the dinosaur long ago. Sure, there are still people out there with your opinion, but I'm sure there are also people in the world that still worship the sun and think the world is flat. People like you justified oppressing blacks and women with the same line of thinking. The belief that someone else's personal freedoms will somehow infringe upon your tiny, white, male, hetrosexual world is laughable. Time to wake the fuck up.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » May 5, 2003, 4:51 pm

well part of the reason marriage is licensed by local communities is because of public health reasons.

for instance all you really have to do to get married is get a blood test that confirms you arent related to your future spouse as well as tests for a couple diseases like syphillis.

whether or not this practice really does much to control the specific diseases and maintain the genetic viability of the population of course is something i dont know the answer to =)

Fesuni Chopsui · Post by **Fesuni Chopsui** » May 6, 2003, 1:47 am

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:As long as not one single dime came from my taxes or other contributions, then I would not have a problem. This is not the case though. I have serious issues with other parts of what I work damn hard for going towards supporting people that I do not wish to support....and I sure as fuck don't want it going to support a marriage that is not natural.

You show me any religion that embraces homosexuality and considers it a normal act. Soddom and Gomorrah had a society that was much like what is becoming common today. It is just a matter of time before it all comes back around.

What really surprises me is that the supporters of this are also the people who think the US is basically hated by middle eastern countries because of our lifestyles (and that we support Israel). How can you twist and turn shit to siut yourselves every other day and remember where you really stand?

Hey closeted sausage jockey, did you even bother to read this thread? It has absolutely NOTHING to do with religion and if it did then we would be conceding that as a nation our government has a bias to one or more religions (which it does ANYWAY because of assholes like you)...which is wrong when you read the fucking constitution...go back to whatever bumfuck backwashville you came from and stay there

Canelek · Post by **Canelek** » May 6, 2003, 2:45 am

Love is love. If the person you are with means that much, so much that you are willing to spend you life with him/her, than by all means!

Not many of us get the chance to find that ONE.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » May 6, 2003, 4:35 am

I think what kilmoll is trying to say (good lord I'm defending kilmoll) in a roundabout bible belty kind of way, is that gay marriage is wrong because of the advantages legally married couples get.

In modern society people are encouraged to marry and produce offspring in order to secure to future of the country's well-being. They get things like tax breaks and special savings plans and can share their insurance with their spouse.. and it's generally advantageous from a financial point of view to marry, because most married couples produce children. The government doesn't give a rat fuck if you love each other or how commited you are; they want future taxpayers and soldiers and laborers and industry leaders etc. Two gay people in love that live together until they are old and feeble is a commendable achievement, but it helps the country grow not at all.

Although they can adopt, so can any couple and its not like many gay couples are allowed to adopt newborns anyway. Not with so many hetero couples that legitimately can't make their own children are waiting to adopt an infant. And I don't know how many states/provinces allow gay couples to adopt older children. Maybe they should, but that isn't really the discussion.

People are trying to seperate the religious from the legal aspect of marraige to justify gay people getting married. And although I see that point of view, from the legal side of it, it also doesn't benefit the government at all to allow gay people to get married and share the same priviledges of a hetero couple.

There are also of course people in government who will just moralize it by saying NO GAY PEOPLE ARE DEVIANT AND WRONG AND ARE GOING TO HELL. And that's their opinion too. They were elected to represent the will of the people and if enough people dislike their stance on gay marraige then they will probably dump them. Unfortunately the gay community is too small to really enact a change via the democratic process though.

Anyway that's my take on it. For myself I am kind of on the fence on the issue. From a strictly moral point of view I don't give a flying fuck what gay people do or want to do. If two men or two women want to make a lifelong commitment to one another then fill your fucking boots. But why should you be able to share the same benefits as a hetero couple that is statistically likely to produce offspring and secure the future for the country? To be totally honest I don't think its that fair, but the percentage of married people that will be same sex is so insignificantly small that that it really doesn't bother me either.

miir · Post by **miir** » May 6, 2003, 10:29 am

They get things like tax breaks and special savings plans and can share their insurance with their spouse..

Why don't you give us examples of all these tax breaks and special savings plans that are available to childless married couples?

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » May 6, 2003, 10:56 am

Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:You show me any religion that embraces homosexuality and considers it a normal act. Soddom and Gomorrah had a society that was much like what is becoming common today. It is just a matter of time before it all comes back around.

For the first item, see http://www.ufmcc.com/index2.htm for information on the Metropolitan Community Churches. I am a member there, and (GASP) I am heterosexual!. It's amazing how supportive the people there are compared to my time with the Baptist and Methodist churches.

For the comments on Sodom and Gomorrah I pulled a quote from that site as well.

Sodom, Creation And The Law:
Hebrew Scripture tells an exciting story of epic scope and includes many books and writings. It was the Bible Jesus knew and studied. For Christians, it continues to serve as the foundation of faith history. It also contains some of the most popular quotes used against lesbians and gays.

What was the sin of Sodom in Genesis 19:1-28?
This Old Testament passage is often wrongly used as "biblical proof" that God is displeased with homosexuals. According to many people these cities were destroyed because residents committed the "sin of homosexuality." To suggest that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of homosexuality is to misinterpret Scripture.

The prophet Ezekiel, in an equally inspired book of the Bible, tells that God was displeased with Sodom for very different reasons: "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed, and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty, and did detestable things before me (literally, 'committed idolatry'). Therefore I did away with them as you have seen. (Ezekiel 16:49-50, New International version".

In every other reference in the Bible
(and there are several) the condemned "sins of Sodom" are such things as pride and inhospitality. The people of Sodom broke the law of hospitality to strangers which was so religiously observed in their culture. Use of the expression "bring these men out to us, that we may know them" (Genesis 19:5) is the basis for most of the misinterpretation. The Hebrew verb yadha ("to know") used here is found 943 times in the Hebrew Scriptures and in only ten places does it mean sexual intercourse - each time referring to heterosexual relations. But even if the people of Sodom did attempt a "homosexual" attack upon the angels, the passage would serve as a clear condemnation of rape (certainly an extreme form of inhospitality). Rape, either heterosexual or homosexual, is sin under any circumstances.

Now, can we get the topic back to the actual marriage issue? Having attended several Holy Unions, I know that not ALL reasons for making it legal are financial which many people here assume. A large part of it is just so the people don't have to feel ashamed of their relationships being taken to another level.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » May 6, 2003, 10:56 am

My wife and I were married with no children and we didn't get shit for tax breaks. As a matter of fact, we both get considerably more back at the end of the year now that we're single again.

I am unaware of any special tax breaks you get just for being married. I would arge that, if anything, you get shafted even more. Now, once you start throwing kids into the equation, tax breaks can get signifficant.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » May 6, 2003, 11:03 am

Fairweather Pure wrote:My wife and I were married with no children and we didn't get shit for tax breaks. As a matter of fact, we both get considerably more back at the end of the year now that we're single again.

I am unaware of any special tax breaks you get just for being married. I would arge that, if anything, you get shafted even more. Now, once you start throwing kids into the equation, tax breaks can get signifficant.

Trust me it still does not cover the cost, Not until they are 12 and you can get them in a good sweatshop do they start paying there way.

Deward · Post by **Deward** » May 6, 2003, 11:09 am

Voronwë wrote: the main reason gays want "legal" marriage is for financial reasons. There are financial situations where being married is extremely advantageous.

Please enlighten me on the financial benefits of being married? I am married and all it got me was less money at tax time. I guess my wife and I might save a little in insurance costs but not enough to justify what the marriage tax is. This is a serious question not trying to flame here.

If Homosexuals want to get married then I don't have no problem with it. But it shouldn't matter what I think or anyone else thinks. This is a private matter between the two people. Government should not be trying to force it's own version of morality on the people.

Deward

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » May 6, 2003, 11:09 am

Trust me it still does not cover the cost, Not until they are 12 and you can get them in a good sweatshop do they start paying there way.

Well, it depends really. If the child has some sort of disability or something, the government can go a long way in helping the parents. Just imagine the tax breaks that Metanis's parents got for raising such a huge fucking retard.

VeeshanVault

Gay Marriages

Should same sex marriages be made legal anywhere?

Gay Marriages