BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution

Subject: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution
From: GUEST,Jim Dixon
Date: 24 Feb 04 - 02:31 PM

I heard today that GWBush has called for a constitutional amendment to prohibit same-sex marriage. It seems he wants to turn this into a campaign issue. Specifically, he wants to force the Democratic candidates to take a position, knowing that whichever way they go, they will lose some support.

I find it paradoxical that, as justification for his proposed amendment, he says he considers marriage to be "sacred."

Fine, but that seems like an argument for making the government STAY THE HELL OUT.

Christians consider baptism sacred, too, but we don't allow the government to tell us who can be baptized.

Discuss.

Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 24 Feb 04 - 03:05 PM

What, again, is the divorce rate for these sacred marriages?
How many of these sacred marriages involve abuse?
How many involve sacred infidelity?
Sacred my ass! (well, bad example, because I think it may be)

Your right Jim, it's a political ploy to make the opposition look like bleeding heart libruls (oh that's another thread)

Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution
From: Charley Noble
Date: 24 Feb 04 - 03:41 PM

Before this is over, all of us who got married in a civil service will have to be re-married in a church service and we better believe in God.

It was ironic to see the 2000 clip of Cheney on CNN today opposing a constitutional amendment relating to defining "marriage" as restricted to a couple of the opposite sex. Not that it really matters what a Vice President says...

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 24 Feb 04 - 04:04 PM

Kinder, Kuche, und Kirche...

Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution
From: Peace
Date: 24 Feb 04 - 04:06 PM

A few Canadian and Scottish 'catters are going to have to make arrangements about the sheep thing. Where will that living arrangement fit in the scheme of things?

Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution
From: Amos
Date: 24 Feb 04 - 05:36 PM

Marriage is not a zone over which the Federal Government has any jurisdiction nor ever should; the notion of a Constitutional Amendment governing marriage is a violation and degradation of the Constitution, in spirit at least. As a President whose whole office depends on trampling states' rights (witness his end-run around the Forida Supreme Court four years back) this President --whatever he should be called -- has prior offenses already in dramatization.

The notion that the President of this nation could conceive of legislating marriage and making such legislation a constitutional mandate proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is wholly unqualified to be elected, having no grasp of the fundamentals that govern the job.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Feb 04 - 05:45 PM

"... the fundamentals that govern the job"

I suspect he intends to redefine THOSE, also. (In words of no more than 2 syllables or 6-8 letters)

"If you are prez,and well connected, you get to do what you want"

Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 24 Feb 04 - 06:08 PM

A VERY SHORT PLAY

ADVISOR: But Mister Bush, a proposed amendment has to be approved by 2/3 of both houses of Congress and then ratified by 3/4 of the states. All it takes is enough voters in 13 states saying 'No' and it's dead.

DUBYA: What do I care if the thing has a snowball's chance in hell of passage? There's an election right around the corner and I need a new football to kick around. Everybody's tired of prayer-in-schools and abortion and the Ten Commandments.

THE END

Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution
From: InOBU
Date: 24 Feb 04 - 06:17 PM

George is worried that as long as gay marriage is an option... he may someday be tempted. CHeers Larry

Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Feb 04 - 06:23 PM

'Get out of that closet and rattle those pots and pans' (sic)
lol

Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution
From: katlaughing
Date: 24 Feb 04 - 08:23 PM

I've been following this. My Rog says if they feel that strongly about it, they should also amend the constitution to ban all divorce. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution
From: Bob Hitchcock
Date: 24 Feb 04 - 08:53 PM

Perhaps, if GWB ever gets his Constitutional Amendment, I should divorce my wife because I don't want to a part of an institution that promotes discrimination. It's a pity I am an ex pat and cannot vote in this upcoming election, or I might write in Mickey Rooney!

Bob

Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 24 Feb 04 - 09:40 PM

I've heard so much blather about how same sex marriage will harm this great nation. Can someone, anyone, please tell me exactly and with specificity, how a same sex marriage between any two people will hurt them? No generalities please. How will a same sex marriage between two other people hurt YOU?

Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Feb 04 - 09:42 PM

Bush is a very desperate presidential candidate. He can't run on his record of course, so he has to reach into the grab bag of polarizing wedge issues, to pull out a magic trick.

Thing is, nobody is too hot and bothered to get a constitutional amendment thing going besides the right wing loonies.

This will really work to get him re-elected, don't you think?

Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution
From: Bobert
Date: 24 Feb 04 - 10:03 PM

Ahhhh. Can anyone explain to my why Bush thinks this is going to give him any political adavantage? It solidifies his Christain Right base. So the heck what? LIke they weren't going to vote... or vote for hom? What a joke. Of course they're going to vote.... and for him. That's a given!

If I'm an advisor to either Kerry or Edwards I advise my guy to say "Hey, if 2/3's of the American people want this then and only then will it be something for me to get involved with.Right now, however, I'm real concerned with the real messes that the Bush administration has gotten the United Sates in, like the economy and Iraq. Next question."

Bush is acting very much like a desperate man. I really don't understand the panic on his part. It's his election to lose...Oh yeah, daddy was in the same place and did nothin'. Hopefully, doing somethin' won't work either.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution
From: Peace
Date: 24 Feb 04 - 10:23 PM

I agree with Amos' posting above. The Constitution of the United States of America is one of the greater documents ever written. It speaks of and for freedom and all humanity, and it is remarkable. It ranks up there (in my estimation) with The Ten Commandments or The Magna Carta. (I realize the MC has a few problems, but it did begin to establish rights and responsibilities within government.) It is literature at its finest, and people gotta be real careful before they go messin' with it. It is not really my business; I'm Canadian. However, I have brought it into senior English classes for students to study. That and the "Gettysburg Address" and "I Have a Dream." These writings are priceless. I hope Americans will stop Bush from using a document (that has inspired people all over the world) as a means of furthering his agenda. However, if the people don't, I hope the Supreme Court does.

Bruce Murdoch

Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution
From: GUEST,MarkS
Date: 24 Feb 04 - 10:28 PM

My new missus and I got married by the mayor of our community. We did that because we wanted to get spousal benefits for her, and in order to do that, we needed a piece of paper issued by the state saying we were a wedded couple.

What a crock.

The only reason the state is involved goes back to the days when a woman was considered the "property" of the man and proceedures had to be in place to regulate inheritance trails and dowry distribution.

There is no reason in todays day and age why the state should be involved at all, as long as the people who choose to form a pair are mentally competent and of a recognized age of consent.
The state needs play no role in the agreement, any more than they need play a role in a couples taste in groceries or music.

Any person today should be able to agree to "wed" any other person by any means they choose to use.

Religious ceremony? Great and more happyness to you
Private ceremony? Ditto
No ceremony? Ditto
Public announcement, private contract, whatever,   Ditto

Constitutional amendment my butt!
Stay the hell out and let people get on with their lives the way they like.

Other than that I have no strong feelings on the matter.

Mark

Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Feb 04 - 10:46 PM

This gives an abundantly clear picture of how little Bush understands the nature of the Constitution. The Constitution is for the purpose of limiting the power of government, not American citizens in general. To clarify:—

A citizen is free to do anything he or she wishes unless it is specifically prohibited by law.

The government is not allowed to do anything unless it is specifically permitted by the Constitution.

Bush has it bass-ackwards. The Constitution is not, in itself, a piece of legislation, nor is it intended ever to be. It is the document upon which legislation is based, and that legislation must be consistent with the principles laid out in the Constitution. Bush is trying to use (misuse) it to legislate what amounts to religious morality. He is also trying to use (misuse) it as a campaign ploy.

He took an oath to preserve and protect the Constitution. This kind of political and religious hanky-panky could quite possibly constitute an impeachable offense.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution
From: dianavan
Date: 24 Feb 04 - 11:25 PM

Bush knows he can't change the constitution but he also knows it is a good way to weaken the democratic vote.

What can Kerry say? Nothing. He might lose votes.

What bull#@&! To think that the fate of a nation (maybe the world) rests on the question of who's sleeping with whom. I thought the government was supposed to stay out of the bedroom.

I hope Kerry simply tells him to mind his own business and lets it go at that. Make Bush look as stupid as he really is. I guess thats why I'd like to see Nader debate Bush. At least Nader will make Bush like the moron he is.

d

Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution
From: LadyJean
Date: 24 Feb 04 - 11:56 PM

I am a proud daughter of Pennsylvania. In this state if you stand up in front of two witnesses and say you're married, you're married. It's a common law marriage in Pennsylvania. If you want to get formal about it you can get a license that will enable you to marry without anyone presiding. All you will need are two witnesses. Pennsylvania was founded by Quakers, who have no clergy. Traditionally (My best friend in high school was a Quaker, so I know from experience.) The couple say thier vows in front of the meeting, and then everyone there signs the license. What if some state decided not to recognize such weddings?

Homophobia is such a wonderfully useful non issue. Gays aren't dangerous. But making them so has made millions for Jerry Fallwell, Pat Robertson, and assorted Republican politicians.

Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution
From: Peg
Date: 25 Feb 04 - 12:33 AM

Nader put it well. It's divorce that undermines the institution of marriage, and there is no surplus of love and commitment in this country...people who want to form loving unions should be encouraged.

Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution
From: Steve Parkes
Date: 25 Feb 04 - 04:29 AM

If two people who share a religious faith decide to marry (with whatever connotations that has for them), they would usually do it in a way that is agreeable their religion and their religious community and their God(s). In Britain (and the US too, I expect)this is normally accompanied by a civil legal agreement that confers a number of legal rights and duties. I'm sure you aren't obliged to have to have the legal agreement; equally, you don't have to have the religious one if you don't feel any religious duty to do so.

The legal marriage entitles you to certain tax benefits and rights to each other's property, as well as putting you under certain obligations -- not unlike like a business partnership, in many ways. I don't have a problem in any two (or more, maybe!) people entering into a legally binding contract of that kind; indeed, I'm sure it's possible to have one and not call it marriage without changing any UK laws; you'd maybe start with a joint mortgage, joint bank account and two wills, and then have a solicitor draw up a contract to set out terms and conditions and tie everything together. As long as it avoided mention of a sexual relationship, there would be no problem; even in "proper" marriage, neither partner is entitled to sex.

I think the real issue is that many gay people want to have their sexuality accepted -- not their personal sexuality, but "other" sexuality generally. I think there is some way to go yet.

Steve (not Eve!)

Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution
From: Bobjack
Date: 25 Feb 04 - 05:50 AM

I've heard it all now. Homosexual marriages, Ye Gods! What perversion will you try and force me to accept in the near future then? Some things should be kept behind closed doors. Besides, if two men got "married" to each other, which one would wear the white dress?

Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 25 Feb 04 - 06:20 AM

I think it's terrible that someone is trying to force Bobjack to marry another man! Whoever is doing it, please stop.

Oh yeah, last one I went to Bob wore the white dress (really).

Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution
From: Sttaw Legend
Date: 25 Feb 04 - 06:57 AM

Bobjack, you've made the assumption you have to wear a white dress, the choice is yours, you can wear any colour you wish. Red would go with your complexion, but I also recall you looked stunning in the white one last time.

Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution
From: Sweetfia
Date: 25 Feb 04 - 07:34 AM

HA HA HA, looks like you walked into that one Bob!

Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution
From: Bobjack
Date: 25 Feb 04 - 08:33 AM

Not quite the left wing touchy - feely backlash I expected that's for sure!

Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution
From: Backstage Manager(inactive)
Date: 25 Feb 04 - 08:43 AM

Finally, an issue on which George W. Bush and Osama Bin Laden, and their most loyal followers, are in full agreement.

Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Feb 04 - 08:56 AM

Actually, Xtian fundie fascists and Muslim fundie fascists have a great deal in common, as do Hindu fundie fascists and Jewish fundie fascists.

I believe what they might just share in common is the worldview of religious fundamentalism and political fascism.

Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution
From: Charley Noble
Date: 25 Feb 04 - 09:09 AM

Yes, and if this Constitutional amendment actually passes, in 10 years or so, it won't be long before we have legislation specifying stoning for violaters. It's a constant amazement to me to witness how the Bush Administration seeks to polarize our nation, and the world. I am not amused.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution
From: Amos
Date: 25 Feb 04 - 09:44 AM

This offers his most dangerous piece of posturing yet -- not because gay is or should be an issue, but because the Constitution is and always must be.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution
From: Sttaw Legend
Date: 25 Feb 04 - 09:56 AM

The problems only begin to surface post consummation. Yes, the colour of the dress and who wears it is an issue, but other major problems will surface. Who does the washing-up, who does the ironing, who chooses the curtains, who has the babies, it will get harder and harder....

Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Feb 04 - 10:18 AM

Polling by Pew Research, the most reputable of the US polling institutions, shows that this issue will alienate moderate voters, regardless of which way they lean. Which makes a lot of common sense, actually. Moderates and middle of the road sorts don't want to rock the status quo boat.

Today's Boston Globe has good article about it:

Boston Globe article

Actually, the Globe has a series of articles on the subject, due to the Mass. Supreme Court & Mass Congress going apeshit over the SC decision, for anyone interested in some good writing on the subject.

Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 25 Feb 04 - 10:48 AM

The only amendment I want to see added is the Equal Rights Amendment. I thought it died many years ago, but according to the web page, it seems to be viable. I didn't read it closely, however, just did a quick search for it.

Dubya's move is purely political, a calculation to create a reaction in people who don't know what the Constitution is all about (you gave a good description, Don!).

The full text of the Equal Rights Amendment:

Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

That wording is particularly sublime at a time like this, isn't it?

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 25 Feb 04 - 10:54 AM

Postmodern writers of this amendment probably would substitute the word "gender" for "sex," since the word sex really has nothing to do with gender (but has everything to do with the discussion at hand!).

Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution
From: Chief Chaos
Date: 25 Feb 04 - 10:58 AM

This isn't about "gay" folks getting hitched.
It's about money.
That's the real "sacred" to the repugnican party.
Marriage would allow the partners to have the same benefits that "sraight" folks are accorded and cost businesses alot of dough.
Not to mention benefits accorded to widowed folk by the Gov't. Social Security comes to mind right off the bat.

My opinion is that love should be encouraged and nurtured regardless of the sexual preference of the party.

Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Feb 04 - 11:15 AM

Actually, the idea that allowing gay couples will cost the economy more money if they are married is a myth. They won't. Many already are contributing throught their labor and wealth, more than they are consuming.

I do think there is a small religiously oriented group in the US that is opposed to gay and lesbian lifestyles, that feel that no matter what the argument, it won't dispossess them of their religious beliefs about the community of gay and lesbian people. So you just won't ever reach them and change their minds. But that is an extremely small segment of American society.

The majority of Americans will not want the right wing religious fundamentalists dictating the terms of marriage to them with a constitutional amendment, because they know how binding those amendments are in the US. Although other democracies do amend and rescind amendments to their constitutions a bit more readily than the US does, amending constitutions of Western democracies is always a contentious and arduous process. And according to the Pew polls, the majority of Americans simply won't do it on this issue. Out of a list of 25 issues the polled people about (ie the economy, jobs, NAFTA, etc) gay marriage was 24th out of 25, according to the Globe article.

So this really is a non-issue to Americans. However, it is damn sexy for the media and what is beginning to be a real yawner of a political season.

Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 25 Feb 04 - 11:19 AM

Katlaughing said:

I've been following this. My Rog says if they feel that strongly about it, they should also amend the constitution to ban all divorce. :-)

Kat, shhhhh! Don't give them any ideas!

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 25 Feb 04 - 11:34 AM

While I have some sympathy with the motivation to authoritatively define marriage as between one man and one woman, the Constitution is not the place. If there is a place.

The function of the Constitution, its purpose for being, is not to set in stone rules on all subjects that may be seen as important. The function of the Constitution is, rather, to set up the framework for how the United States is to be governed. Period.

The only amendment that has actually been adopted (that I can think of) that didn't deal with the subject of governance was prohibition, and it was repealed because the Constitutional approach was not appropriate to that problem. Alcohol and alcoholism were at that time seen as a major, major problem, and activists wanted what they considered a rock-solid umbrella solution, which seemed to be offered by a constitutional prohibition, but the production, sale, and use of alcohol were not the proper subject matter of the Constitution.

And before anyone cites the slavery-abolition and subsequent related amendments as being contrary to that last paragraph, I assert that those amendments DID deal with governance and basic political relations, and thus were appropriate under my principle discussed in the second paragraph.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution
From: Strick
Date: 25 Feb 04 - 11:59 AM

Well it's all to the good. The Amendment will never pass and all three candidates, Kerry, Edwards and Bush have had to make some posititve statement about civil unions to show they're not completely and hopelessly biased. First time any of them have committed to anything that I know of.

I wouldn't be surprised to see this make civil unions, an issue that was causing Dean some trouble only a little while ago, a virtual shoe in nation wide in only a couple of years.

Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution
From: dianavan
Date: 25 Feb 04 - 12:46 PM

Chatley Noble : "Polarize" is right! Somebody should tell Bush part of his job is to unify the nation. The unity of two consenting adults is none of his business! Here we go again. His only strategy seems to be divide and conquer.

d

Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution
From: Bob Hitchcock
Date: 25 Feb 04 - 01:23 PM

If they outlaw gay unions like they did alcohol, would we see gayeasies springing up all over the place?

Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution
From: Chief Chaos
Date: 25 Feb 04 - 02:52 PM

Dianavan -

For bush thats "divider upperer" and "conquerator"!

Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Feb 04 - 03:45 PM

Well, to be fair to the polarizers, first we become polarized before we become unified. To be genuinely unified, one must first have a clear understanding of what is dividing people. Once that is understood, it is possible to do the work of bringing people together.

If only the Israelis could finally figure that one out, they could readily (not easily yet, but that too will come) co-exist with a Palestinian state without fearing for their personal safety in their homeland.

Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Feb 04 - 03:55 PM

People always talk as if weddings were carried out by the person officiating - the priest or the registar or the Captain of the ship or whatever. In fact that person is really just a special kind of witness to a ceremony which is actually carried out by the people getting married.

Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution
From: Bob Hitchcock
Date: 25 Feb 04 - 04:15 PM

I beg to differ McGrath, most of the weddings I have attended have been officiated by the brides Mother...

Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 25 Feb 04 - 04:17 PM

What is all the fuss about banning a gay marriage? I thought it was supposed to be a happy time.

Seriously, the scary thing, if you believe polls, is that most Americans do not want to see same-sex unions. There is still a lot of people that need an education. The times they are a-changin, whether George Bush & Rush Limbaugh believe it or not.

Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Feb 04 - 04:48 PM

I'm not worried about this. While a majority of Americans (varies drastically according to the poll you are looking at) may oppose gay and lesbian marriage, the only question that matters is: what are they willing to do to stop it?

Answer right now seems to be, not much.

Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Feb 04 - 04:53 PM

There seem to be two issues here that get mixed up together. One is whether there's any reason why the State should have any objections to people in same sex partnerships being able to have the same recognised arrangements as in mixed partnerships. The other is whether the term marriage is appropriate in same sex partnerships.

When people say they are in favour of civil partnerships, but are against these being called marriages, that's surely just arguing linguistics.   A bit like "what is folk" - getting all het up over a mere label that doesn't really matter a great deal.

Subject: RE: BS: Same-sex marriage and the constitution
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 25 Feb 04 - 05:02 PM

McGrath of Harlow said:

People always talk as if weddings were carried out by the person officiating - the priest or the registar or the Captain of the ship or whatever. In fact that person is really just a special kind of witness to a ceremony which is actually carried out by the people getting married.

Well, there are two ways to look at marriage, from the inside out and the outside in.

The two people involved can (and should) decide and ordain their mutual commmitment, and can publish it to the world. This is the personal-relations view of marriage. However, that decision is private and subjective, and society needs something objective to look to.

The society has a role here, in how it views and treats the people involved. This is, was, always has been true. This is the social- institution view or function of marriage. This involves such things as tax status, social status as it will be recognized by others, Social Security status, and lots of other things.

Under the common law, anyone (understood at that time as any man and woman not already married and not within the proscribed degree of consanguinity, etc.,)could decide that they were married, declare it to the society around them, and they were in fact married under that legal regime. As society grew more complex, this function of the common law was abolished (in most or I think all states), and a legal set of objective requirements was set up in order to qualify a relationship as marriage, including licenses and officiation (or at least official witnessing) by certain kinds of persons, who would certify for the public record that John X and Jane Y, pursuant to license, were publicly joined. This record served the public's interest in regularity of inheritance, prevention (or at least discouragement) of bigamy, prevention of incestuous unions, assurance of legitimacy of offspring, affecting tax status, and lots more.

While the officiating person doesn't do something that magically "creates" a marriage, from society's point of view a marriage doesn't exist unless it is properly spread of record according to society's rules.

I remember teasing my bride, 43 years ago, by saying, "Aha! I done you in, gal! You think we got married, but I'll tell you, now that I've had my way of you, that preacher didn't have a permit to perform marriage ceremonies!" Which was true enough, but then neither does any other preacher or judge or whatever. Their mere status (as preacher, registrar, judge, ship captain at sea) is sufficient to establish their ability to certify to the fact that the couple presented themselves publicly as man and wife. The ceremony gets dressed up in ritual, sometimes, which makes it appear that the officiating person waved a wand, so to speak, and brought about the married state, but it ain't so.

You know, when I started to write this post I thought I was disagreeing with McGrath, but I see that all I've done was extend his comments. I think.

Dave Oesterreich