# What is the argument in favor of gay marriage? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 4, 2006, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-in-favor-of-gay-marriage/338448 "2006-01-04T19:53:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![Serket](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b38774/32.png) [@Serket](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Serket)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2006, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-in-favor-of-gay-marriage/338448/221 "2006-01-09T01:19:08Z")
> [@zamboniracer](#): > > The Goodridge case in Massachusetts was a 4-3 decision. Based on that you say that the three dissenters - who to my mind wrote the more persuasive opinion and the attorneys and public officials who argued against gay marriage- are not nice people. You can read about the case [here.](http://www.mass.gov/courts/courtsandjudges/courts/supremejudicialcourt/goodridge.html) > [@](#): > > Justice Cordy, with whom Justice Spina and Justice Sosman joined, dissented on the ground that the marriage statute, as historically interpreted to mean the union of one man and one woman, does not violate the Massachusetts Constitution because “the Legislature could rationally conclude that it furthers the legitimate State purpose of ensuring, promoting, and supporting an optimal social structure for the bearing and raising of children.” Justice Cordy stated that the court’s conclusions to the contrary are unsupportable in light of “the presumption of constitutional validity and significant deference afforded to legislative enactments, and the ‘undesirability of the judiciary substituting its notion of correct policy for that of a popularly elected legislature’ responsible for making it.’ Further, Justice Cordy stated that “[w]hile ‘the Massachusetts Constitution protects matters of personal liberty against government intrusion at least as zealously and often more so than does the Federal Constitution,’ this case is not about government intrusions into matters of personal liberty,” but “about whether the State must endorse and support [the choices of same-sex couples] by changing the institution of civil marriage to make its benefits, obligations, and responsibilities applicable to them.” Justice Cordy concluded that, although the plaintiffs had made a powerful case for the extension of the benefits and burdens of civil marriage to same-sex couples, the issue “is one deeply rooted in social policy” and 'that decision must be made by the Legislature, not the court.” > > Justice Spina, in a separately filed dissenting opinion, stated that “[W]hat is at stake in this case is not the unequal treatment of individuals or whether individuals rights have been impermissibly burdened, but the power of the Legislature to effectuate social change without interference from the courts, pursuant to art. 30 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights.” He emphasized that the “power to regulate marriage lies with the Legislature, not with the judiciary.” > > Justice Sosman, in a separately filed dissenting opinion, stated that “the issue is not whether the Legislature’s rationale behind [the statutory scheme being challenged] is persuasive to [the court],” but whether it is “rational” for the Legislature to “reserve judgment” on whether changing the definition of marriage “can be made at this time without damaging the institution of marriage or adversely affecting the critical role it has played in our society.” She concluded that, “[a]bsent consensus on the issue (which obviously does not exist), or unanimity amongst scientists studying the issue (which also does not exist), or a more prolonged period of observation of this new family structure (which has not yet been possible), it is rational for the Legislature to postpone any redefinition of marriage that would include same-sex couples until such time as it is certain that redefinition will not have unintended and undesirable social consequences.” ---
**Author:** ![Serket](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b38774/32.png) [@Serket](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Serket)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2006, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-in-favor-of-gay-marriage/338448/222 "2006-01-09T01:23:33Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > And this has what to do with gay marriage? Just because it happened in Massachusetts, it’s automatically fallout from allowing gays to marry? You’ll have to do better than that. [Here’s a map of states that allow cousins to marry.](http://www.cousincouples.com/info/states.shtml) Note the overlap with states that have ammended their constitutions to forbid gay marriage. Clearly, banning gay marriage encourages incest! Where can I see a list of states with gay marriage bans? Or are they just the 11 who passed bans in 2004? ---
**Author:** ![Siege](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dbc845/32.png) [@Siege](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Siege)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2006, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-in-favor-of-gay-marriage/338448/223 "2006-01-09T01:51:53Z")
**Serket** , you _are_ aware, aren’t you, that interracial marriage was opposed by an even greater percentage of the population than that which opposes homosexual marriage today and the reasons given were similar to yours, except for your curious fascination with a form of intercourse which I’d assume about half of gay people can’t indulge in. I’d also appreciate a reply to either of my two previous posts, not that I expect one. As I mentioned earlier, when I was in high school, it was made quite clear to me that nerds having sex, or indeed, having any contact with the opposite sex, was gross and disgusting. Speaking as a certified, glasses-wearing, programmer of a nerd, should nerds therefore not be allowed to have sex or marry because it grosses a certain portion of the population out? CJ ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2006, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-in-favor-of-gay-marriage/338448/224 "2006-01-09T02:06:26Z")
> [@Serket](#): > > You can read about the case [here.](http://www.mass.gov/courts/courtsandjudges/courts/supremejudicialcourt/goodridge.html) Based on the exerpts you gave us, the only actual opposition to the court case was that three of the justices felt it should have been handled by the legislature and did not propose any reasons to oppose same sex marriage on any ground inherent in same sex marriage. Regardless of the Massachusetts decision, this thread is discussing whether same sex marriage is appropriate and the decisions of the Massachusetts Court dissenters do not seem to actually address that issue. ---
**Author:** ![waterj2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/858c86/32.png) [@waterj2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/waterj2)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2006, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-in-favor-of-gay-marriage/338448/225 "2006-01-09T02:10:19Z")
> [@Serket](#): > > Where can I see a list of states with gay marriage bans? Or are they just the 11 who passed bans in 2004? The states that have passed constitutional ammendments banning gay marriage are: Nevada Montana Oregon Utah Kansas Missouri Michigan North Dakota Ohio Louisiana Arkansas Georgia Kentucky Mississippi Oklahoma Texas I believe that 39 states have either a constitutional ammendment or a regular specifically banning gay marriage. ---
**Author:** ![Peanut50](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8491ac/32.png) [@Peanut50](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peanut50)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2006, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-in-favor-of-gay-marriage/338448/226 "2006-01-09T02:33:32Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > I seem to be losing any skill I had at expressing myself clearly, so here goes again: > > What person X means by “I am married” can mean **three different things** : I agreed to commit myself to Y for life in exchange for his/her promise to do likewise"; “I got a marriage license and went through a state-approved ceremony to get legal recognition for that commitment”; or “I and my spouse-to-be went before our clergyman and the church and committed ourselves in marriage before God.” Only one of these is the official, state-recognized state of marriage, but all three enter into people’s mental constructs of what they mean by “marriage.” I can find you literally 100 threads on a Christian board where people are arguing straight-faced that gay marriage should not be permitted because God is opposed to it. Nothing to do with law, everything to do with the religious construct, but they’re switching definitions in midstream to apply the religious definition to the legal one. And, free speech being protected, they have the right to do that. Even though it works an injustice on the gay people who want legal marriage. I am also obviously losing some skill at comprehension, because I am now not sure what it is you are arguing. While I concur with you that people may mean different “types” of things when they \*say \* that they are “married,” the substitution of any alternative “definition” to marriage (i.e., your “private vows” couple as one example or your “private religious ceremony” couple as a second) is nothing more than prestidigitation by those attempting to cloud the issue. While both the private vows couple and the private religious ceremony may “feel” themselves to be married, \*neither \* of those two couples is legally married, and that is the only topic under discussion with regard to SSM. The “other” couples or “methods of marriage,” if you will, are not relevant to this debate, because neither of their “ceremonies” is regulated, endorsed, allowed \*or \* prohibited by law. To include either in a discussion of “allowing” gay marriage under law serves no purpose but to distract from the central issue - which is whether or not to afford the same legal rights and privileges to same-sex couples through legal (civil) marriage. The rights we are discussing do not attach to either the “private vows” couple or the “private religious ceremony” people, so those types of ceremonies are irrelevant to the discussion. > [@](#): > > By the way, there is a distinct difference between a couple who is married in their own sight and one who is cohabiting. It has to do with individual commitment. I’ve known couples who were doing each, and what they meant by it were quite different. Yes, **legally** there’s no difference. But what makes this discussion so convoluted is that people are in fact swapping definitions one for another rapidfire. What you are discussing in this last paragraph is twofold; the former - the difference between how different cohabitating couples view themselves - is a matter only of their perception. How they perceive \*themselves \* makes no difference whatsoever in the eyes of the law, which, again, is the actual issue that matters to this particular discussion. (They may believe themselves to be “married,” but they’re in for a rude shock in a medical emergency or the case of sudden death. I’m not proselytizing about marriage, here; I’m simply discussing the reality of legal definitions of next-of-kin and “family.”). With regard to your last statement - that the discussion is convoluted because people are “swapping definitions” - I disagree. You said, two posts ago, that I have erred in including the “fallacy of the Excluded Middle.” The reality is that insofar as “legal marriage” goes, there is NO “excluded middle,” and that’s the problem with getting sidetracked into discussions of private vows or private religious ceremonies. As none of these alternate “definitions” are in any way impacted by legal (civil) marriage, discussing them serves no purpose but to muddy the waters. When it comes to the legal rights appurtenant to marriage, \*\*only \*\* the civil form of marriage (regardless of whether performed by clergy or a courthouse judge or a JP in Vegas) - the form that comes with a marriage license and a marriage certificate - is entitled to these rights, and \*\*only \*\* these rights \*\*are \*\* the rights being sought by SS couples. To be clear: I don’t disagree with you that some couples may perceive themselves as married, even though they have not participated in a legal ceremony. However, I do not believe for one second that the vast majority of Americans are befuddled by some “alternative” definition of marriage in this context. When religious Americans fight over SSM, they are not arguing that gays shouldn’t be allowed to marry \*in the Church \* (whatever church that may be); they are arguing against affording to gay couples the same legal rights and privileges heterosexual couples receive through civil marriage. The argument is over civil (legal) marriage, \*\*not \*\* cohabitation (however self-defined and self-perceived) or “private religious ceremony only” marriage. The entire \*\*point \*\* of the SSM debate is that self-perception (of one’s relationship) is irrelevant - only what is recognized under LAW matters when it comes to family, inheritance, taxes and so on. Ergo, discussing any type of self-constructed perception of marriage that is not legally consummated really serves no useful purpose in this particular analysis. Peanut50 ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2006, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-in-favor-of-gay-marriage/338448/227 "2006-01-09T02:57:36Z")
> [@Peanut50](#): > > {extensive snippage of well-reasoned discussion} > > The entire \*\*point \*\* of the SSM debate is that self-perception (of one’s relationship) is irrelevant - only what is recognized under LAW matters when it comes to family, inheritance, taxes and so on. Ergo, discussing any type of self-constructed perception of marriage that is not legally consummated really serves no useful purpose in this particular analysis. > > Peanut50 I have absolutely no disagreement with you on the fact that what is **appropriate** for debate is the legal construct of marriage. The point I was getting at is that human beings are not purely logical entities, but invest terms with emotional connotations, etc. And those on the “anti” side nationally, even if not in this thread, are swapping their ideas of what a proper marriage before God should be. The third item, that of a couple’s self-perception, is also important, as it’s the bottom line on which the other two depend. It’s in their honoring that commitment between themselves that legal and churchly marriages find their validity. And you will find gay couples deeming themselves “married” even though they cannot formalize that as a legally recognized state. That’s why I went through that entire excursus: what **the law** means by marriage may not be what Deacon Daniels means or what Bruce and Timmy mean. ---
**Author:** ![Peanut50](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8491ac/32.png) [@Peanut50](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peanut50)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2006, 5:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-in-favor-of-gay-marriage/338448/228 "2006-01-09T05:13:16Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > I have absolutely no disagreement with you on the fact that what is **appropriate** for debate is the legal construct of marriage. > > The point I was getting at is that human beings are not purely logical entities, but invest terms with emotional connotations, etc. And those on the “anti” side nationally, even if not in this thread, are swapping their ideas of what a proper marriage before God should be. The third item, that of a couple’s self-perception, is also important, as it’s the bottom line on which the other two depend. It’s in their honoring that commitment between themselves that legal and churchly marriages find their validity. And you will find gay couples deeming themselves “married” even though they cannot formalize that as a legally recognized state. That’s why I went through that entire excursus: what **the law** means by marriage may not be what Deacon Daniels means or what Bruce and Timmy mean. Agreed, absolutely; in particular, the ability of humans to utilize critical thinking about sensitive topics seems to be increasingly in danger of extinction, along with a scary trend toward an inability to distinguish between fact and opinion. I further agree that it is the investment of the couples themselves in which marriage finds its ultimate validity, civil, churchly or otherwise. The excursus was indeed welcome; it is always valuable to examine the issue from different perspectives. Thus far, I am \*really \* liking this forum; finding rational discussion is a real treat. Peanut50 ---
**Author:** ![spectrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9fc29f/32.png) [@spectrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spectrum)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2006, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-in-favor-of-gay-marriage/338448/229 "2006-01-09T17:54:10Z")
> [@zamboniracer](#): > > Because, as I’ve said already, same sex marriage is the most efficient way to have and raise children and therefore contributes greatly to society. Gay marriage contributes nothing to society as a whole and nothing to me in particular. Gay marriages encourages stability and fidelity, decreasing the chances of promiscuity and working to hinder the spread of STDs amongst the gay community, which inevitably bleed over into the straight community. Gay marriage helps protect the children of gay couples, provides them with a more solid base of support. Gay marriage links couples into each other’s health insurance programs, thus lowering the chances that costs of a major medical problem will end up falling back on the public at large. Gay marriages are substantively no different than heterosexual marriages. Everything that straight marriage does that is positive for the community as a whole gay marriage also does. Why should your child receive the benefits included in having parents who are married, but mine should not? ---
**Author:** ![Serket](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b38774/32.png) [@Serket](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Serket)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2006, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-in-favor-of-gay-marriage/338448/230 "2006-01-09T18:00:46Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > Do you think Og and Ook the Neaderthals shacked up together just to screw with 21st century American politics? How do you know they did? > [@](#): > > What about homosexual animals I have heard about gay cows. What about other animals? ---
**Author:** ![Serket](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b38774/32.png) [@Serket](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Serket)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2006, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-in-favor-of-gay-marriage/338448/231 "2006-01-09T18:08:12Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > **Serkat** : the question isn’t what point of law allows for those rights and protections, the question is, why were those points of law made into law in the first place? Why should women have the right to vote? Why was segregation wrong? Perhaps you can open up a GQ on the topic of why those became law. > [@](#): > > Heck, I wouldn’t mind seeing **zmboniracer** answer that question. Would you have supported women’s sufferage, if you had been alive when it was a topic for debate? Why? Giving women the franchise cost quite a bit of money, and it actually took something away from men by diluting the power of their individual votes. Would you have opposed that? Same question about the civil rights act. Unless you’re a black woman, of course, in which case maybe you should explain to me why I should have supported either of those measures, when neither benefited me directly. Only one of my 4th great grandparents was born in the South (Alabama) so there is a pretty good chance I would have been against slavery had I lived at the time. ---
**Author:** ![Serket](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b38774/32.png) [@Serket](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Serket)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2006, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-in-favor-of-gay-marriage/338448/232 "2006-01-09T18:13:59Z")
> [@Anne Neville](#): > > And all things that are legal or popular are right, and all things that are illegal or unpopular are wrong? So you’d be OK with laws like the [Jim Crow laws](http://www.jimcrowhistory.org/history/creating2.htm), which were quite popular with the voting public at the time? And the internment of Japanese Americans during WWII was just fine, because it was popular? Neither of those were put in the Constitution, but yes I would support the process. And again later if a new amendment reversed the first one. > [@](#): > > The Founding Fathers deliberately set limits on what could be done by a majority vote, because they feared (among other things) that a majority of the people could take away fundamental rights from an unpopular minority. > How exactly does a straight marriage with no children and no possibility of having children benefit society in a way that a gay marriage does not? So which things are not allowed to be amendments? ---
**Author:** ![spectrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9fc29f/32.png) [@spectrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spectrum)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2006, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-in-favor-of-gay-marriage/338448/233 "2006-01-09T18:20:47Z")
> [@Serket](#): > > How do you know they did? We know that homosexual couplings have existed for as long as we have records of such things. We also know that homosexuality is present in all primates, and Neanderthals were primates. What evidence is there that they wouldn’t have gay pairings, just like every society in history? Homosexuality is present in all primates, in virtually all mammals and is very common amongst birds. ---
**Author:** ![spectrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9fc29f/32.png) [@spectrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spectrum)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2006, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-in-favor-of-gay-marriage/338448/234 "2006-01-09T18:22:41Z")
> [@Serket](#): > > Neither of those were put in the Constitution, but yes I would support the process. And again later if a new amendment reversed the first one. So you would support whatever is the broad public will? That’s absurd. The Jim Crowe laws were pure evil, and no decent person could possibly support them, for any reason at any point. The same goes for opposing equality for gays and lesbians. ---
**Author:** ![Atticus\_Finch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ec9cab/32.png) [@Atticus\_Finch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atticus_Finch)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2006, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-in-favor-of-gay-marriage/338448/235 "2006-01-09T18:25:57Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Serkat: the question isn’t what point of law allows for those rights and protections, the question is, why were those points of law made into law in the first place? Why should women have the right to vote? Why was segregation wrong? > [@Serket](#): > > Perhaps you can open up a GQ on the topic of why those became law. It doesn’t work like that. Answer Miller’s question. I assume you believe women have the right to vote and that segregation is wrong, so why do you believe that one should change the law to grant rights in those cases, but not in the case of gay marriage? ---
**Author:** ![Serket](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b38774/32.png) [@Serket](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Serket)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2006, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-in-favor-of-gay-marriage/338448/236 "2006-01-09T18:26:52Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > Further, does a step-parent have any incentive to help raise the children of one’s spouse? The step-parent has no genetic contribution invested. It would be more logical to simply _kill_ the step-children to prevent the spouse from wasting resources on them, and produce new ones. Lions and other cats do this pretty casually, in the process of evolution. Someone else will have to address this, but I think studies have shown that protection of other people can indirectly pass on genes or help the human species survive. ---
**Author:** ![Serket](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b38774/32.png) [@Serket](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Serket)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2006, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-in-favor-of-gay-marriage/338448/237 "2006-01-09T18:28:58Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > There is no “intent” in evolution. Nothing in biology is “meant” for anything. Perhaps, but why is there a penis? What does it do? ---
**Author:** ![Crotalus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crotalus/32/41_2.png) [@Crotalus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crotalus)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2006, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-in-favor-of-gay-marriage/338448/238 "2006-01-09T18:34:54Z")
\*\*Serket \*\* - Your OP asked for the argument in favor of gay marriage, specifically arguments supporting the legalization of gay marriage. A number of posters have provided arguments based on equal treatment under the law and simple fairness. You provided a list of personal opinions and feelings that most posters have found to be, shall we say, insufficient. Do you think that there is an argument based on the constitution and legal traditions of the US that supports forbidding same-sex marriage? I’m not categorically denying that such a thing exists, but I would appreciate it if you would make an attempt to articulate it. ---
**Author:** ![Crotalus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crotalus/32/41_2.png) [@Crotalus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crotalus)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2006, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-in-favor-of-gay-marriage/338448/239 "2006-01-09T18:37:49Z")
> [@Serket](#): > > Perhaps, but why is there a penis? What does it do? It does several things. You cited evolution, and several posters have correctly stated that evolution describes processes and results, not intent. There are religious arguments that involve intent, but not evolutionary ones. ---
**Author:** ![Serket](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b38774/32.png) [@Serket](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Serket)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2006, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-in-favor-of-gay-marriage/338448/240 "2006-01-09T20:58:43Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > **serket** , I’ve got a proposal. It sounds as if you’ve got a lot of reasons for opposing gay marriage. As you can tell, this discussion is all over the place. Instead of discussing them all simultaneously, how about you choose what you think is the single best reason for opposing same-sex marriage and describe it, and then we can debate that one reason? If folks do convince you that this reason isn’t sufficient for opposing SSM, then you can offer your next-strongest reason for debate. > > How does that sound? > > Daniel I think the strongest reason is that SSM is not a Civil Rights issue. The next strongest reason is that people who support SSM, but are opposed to incest, are hypocrites. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-in-favor-of-gay-marriage/338448.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-argument-in-favor-of-gay-marriage/338448.md?page=13)