Polygamists next in line for marriage equality?

[TheWarriorMonk]

With regard to the OP’s question, I see no reason…zero…why more than two people should be prohibited from marrying in the current environment. The combination of gay marriage being allowed and no-fault divorce laws has eviscerated the concept of traditional marriage in a legal context. Gender is not longer relevant in marriage, sex is not longer relevant in marriage, children are no longer relevant in marriage, etc. All of the elements of traditional marriage have essentially been thrown out in law. So why does the number “2” become the end all and the dividing line for deciding who should marry who?

Unlike gay marriage, polygamy (and variants thereof, always involving both sexes in some combination) actually has a basis in tradition. Limiting marriage to two people at this point is purely arbitrary in secular law.

 

[Wolf357]

Sure they will be. You watch, the LGBT community will rally against it.

I hope they do, because then we will see the LGBT hypocrisy and maybe people will finally wake up to their venomous agenda. The homosexual agenda is only interested in tolerance when it favors them, and I would bet on the idea that they will abandon the tolerance banner when it suits their desires. (Their corruption of the word tolerance will remain.)

The interesting thing is too is gay/bisexual people are not exactly friendly to transgendered people. Their alliance was just because of a common status of minority/sexual deviance. I imagine they will turn on each other in short order.

 

[JimG]

That’s precisely the point I’m making. Every era has it’s problems, and often when we look back we only see the good. The fact is that for a great many people “the good old days” were hell. For others, today is hell. But let’s not sweep everything under the rug just because divorce wasn’t as common back then. Let’s face it, people weren’t better spouses back then, it’s just that divorce was so unacceptable that many people felt trapped into staying with abusers, drunks, and adulterers. Actually domestic and child abuse was extremely common, and there were few legal remedies.

I know many black people, and I can’t think of one that would give up their equality, education, and opportunities just for the sake of having a greater chance of having married parents. I mean wow, things were really, really awful back then.

I guess our memories are just different, because I remember a lot of people who were better spouses back then. I think it was mainly because everyone took their marriage vows quite seriously, knowing that divorce was not likely or easy, but that’s an analysis for another day. I never knew any kids with divorced parents growing up, and I don’t think there was any wife-beating going on in my neighborhood. Even then, the neighbors would have known. And I didn’t live in an upper class neighborhood.

I’m not any kind of expert on the black family, so I can’t say anything about their experiences. I do recall that nearly 50 years ago, Daniel Patrick Moynihan was so concerned about the seeming disintegration of families in black neighborhoods that he wrote a report on it as part of the administration, calling attention to it and pointing to it as something that would be worthy of government action. He was so roundly condemned for even bringing it up that he just shut up and never spoke of it again. But I just don’t see how a 70% out of wedlock birth rate helps anything. Even Bill Cosby has spoken of the importance of families.

And it’s not just black families that are affected. White families have also begun to disintegrate probably due to the same factors. When families disintegrate, the community is not helped. Society does not hold together. And to get back to the thread, I don’t think that either gay marriage or polygamy will represent an improvement in family stability.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

I guess our memories are just different, because I remember a lot of people who were better spouses back then. I think it was mainly because everyone took their marriage vows quite seriously, knowing that divorce was not likely or easy, but that’s an analysis for another day. I never knew any kids with divorced parents growing up, and I don’t think there was any wife-beating going on in my neighborhood. Even then, the neighbors would have known. And I didn’t live in an upper class neighborhood.

I’m not any kind of expert on the black family, so I can’t say anything about their experiences. I do recall that nearly 50 years ago, Daniel Patrick Moynihan was so concerned about the seeming disintegration of families in black neighborhoods that he wrote a report on it as part of the administration, calling attention to it and pointing to it as something that would be worthy of government action. He was so roundly condemned for even bringing it up that he just shut up and never spoke of it again. But I just don’t see how a 70% out of wedlock birth rate helps anything. Even Bill Cosby has spoken of the importance of families.

And it’s not just black families that are affected. White families have also begun to disintegrate probably due to the same factors. When families disintegrate, the community is not helped. Society does not hold together. And to get back to the thread, I don’t think that either gay marriage or polygamy will represent an improvement in family stability.

You absolutely would not have known if there was any wife beating in your neighborhood, and that misconception is very dangerous for victims of abuse. Attend a support group for former victims some time, you will see many elderly women who were beaten for decades and no one knew. People either didn’t notice or didn’t think much about it back then because it just wasn’t talked about. The same is true for child abuse, including sexual abuse. There were a lot of cultural factors that contributed to the victimization of women, children, and minorities. Frankly, I’m glad that things have changed since then.

Of course divorce is an issue now, but the solution needs to be found as we move forward into the future, not in an overly romanticized memory of decades past. Turning back the clock and dehumanizing minorities, exploiting the labor of women and children, making rape, abuse, and out of wedlock pregnancy something that we just don’t talk about won’t help.

Let’s face it, the world is a far different place than it was in 1940, and what worked then won’t work now.

Ideas that might help include heavily encouraging or requiring premarital counseling, making marriage counseling more affordable for the lower class, requiring counseling before a divorce is granted (with exceptions for things like abuse), making it easier for married adults to take advantage of federal aid to go back to school (married nontraditional students often have a hard time getting funding), and perhaps increasing the civil penalties in divorce cases for a cheating spouse, as in, if infidelity can be proven the straying spouse is entitled to far less. And I’m sure that people more educated than I am who have thought about it for longer could revise and add to my list in constructive ways.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

I guess our memories are just different, because I remember a lot of people who were better spouses back then. I think it was mainly because everyone took their marriage vows quite seriously, knowing that divorce was not likely or easy, but that’s an analysis for another day. I never knew any kids with divorced parents growing up, and I don’t think there was any wife-beating going on in my neighborhood. Even then, the neighbors would have known. And I didn’t live in an upper class neighborhood.

I’m not any kind of expert on the black family, so I can’t say anything about their experiences. I do recall that nearly 50 years ago, Daniel Patrick Moynihan was so concerned about the seeming disintegration of families in black neighborhoods that he wrote a report on it as part of the administration, calling attention to it and pointing to it as something that would be worthy of government action. He was so roundly condemned for even bringing it up that he just shut up and never spoke of it again. But I just don’t see how a 70% out of wedlock birth rate helps anything. Even Bill Cosby has spoken of the importance of families.

And it’s not just black families that are affected. White families have also begun to disintegrate probably due to the same factors. When families disintegrate, the community is not helped. Society does not hold together. And to get back to the thread, I don’t think that either gay marriage or polygamy will represent an improvement in family stability.

Yes, families are important and the black community in general is struggling more than most. And that should be addressed in some constructive way. But when you make the statement that blacks were better off in the days of Jim Crowe laws and before the Civil Right’s movement because there were more two parent households you are spitting in the faces of a lot of people who struggled through many atrocities to simply be treated like humans. Trust me, the guys fearing lynch mobs were not just grateful to have happily married parents.

 

[Memaw]

That’s precisely the point I’m making. Every era has it’s problems, and often when we look back we only see the good. The fact is that for a great many people “the good old days” were hell. For others, today is hell. But let’s not sweep everything under the rug just because divorce wasn’t as common back then. Let’s face it, people weren’t better spouses back then, it’s just that divorce was so unacceptable that many people felt trapped into staying with abusers, drunks, and adulterers. Actually domestic and child abuse was extremely common, and there were few legal remedies.

I know many black people, and I can’t think of one that would give up their equality, education, and opportunities just for the sake of having a greater chance of having married parents. I mean wow, things were really, really awful back then.

I disagree with you again. I didn’t say everything was “perfect” just much better in my growing up. My father was a “drunk’, my parents were divorced. My older brothers worked and helped my Mom raise us. And we are forever grateful to them. They later married and raised families of their own. None of my brothers ever drank. We didn’t live in a city so I can’t speak for life there. Life for my nieces and nephews etc. is soooo much different today. While a few are doing fine, most are living lives " Modern style” Even some of their kids are following their example. It breaks my heart to see this happening. Anything goes today and many follow that path. And it looks like it many even get worse. God have Mercy on us and our Country. They may think they have won the battle but God will win the war. God Bless, Memaw

 

[HouseArrest]

I hope they do, because then we will see the LGBT hypocrisy and maybe people will finally wake up to their venomous agenda. The homosexual agenda is only interested in tolerance when it favors them, and I would bet on the idea that they will abandon the tolerance banner when it suits their desires. (Their corruption of the word tolerance will remain.)

The interesting thing is too is gay/bisexual people are not exactly friendly to transgendered people. Their alliance was just because of a common status of minority/sexual deviance. I imagine they will turn on each other in short order.

This reminds me of an essay by Anthony Esolen I read years ago. He was describing attitudes of those caught up in the sexual revolution. In it he suggested that those wishing to validate their poor behavior utilized “The Rule of the Movable Line… That is, the Line dividing what is sexually licit from what is illicit is always placed one or two steps below whatever one is doing at the time.” The article is called “Nice Fornication”. Here is a link to it: thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/nice-fornication.html

I think this is how gay marriage and the gay cause made it’s push. They separated themselves from their pedophile brothers, wagged their fingers at them, and stated how horrible they were, but the gays themselves, well, they were in love. They then appealed to the emotions of the general public and got gay marriage approved.

 

[EasterJoy]

Really? Really? So who cares that blacks were beaten, intimidated, treated like second class citizens, kept out of educational institutions, etc? Things were so much better for them because hey, while they couldn’t even vote their parents were together. As someone who comes from a “broken” family I’ll take my situation over that of a black person’s in 1940. That outlook is extremely offensive and I think most black people would strongly disagree that they were better off then.

As for women in the workforce the wage gap was enormous and there were no protections in place for sex discrimination and sexual harassment.

I don’t think anyone literally wants to turn the clock back. We all want Roe v. Wade overturned, but that doesn’t mean we’re all going to turn in our cell phones and go back to wearing girdles. The point was that there have been a few babies thrown out with the bad bathwater, that’s all.

 

[vsedriver]

Though polygamists may push to be next, I think that the next push will be for a lowering of age of consent laws, thereby enabling ‘adult-young person marriage.’ I was going to write “adult-child” marriage, but the proponents will be careful to find a better term than that.

The argument will be that girls can obtain the morning after pill at age 15 and younger. They can consent to sex with a 16 year old, why not a 28 year old? They can often get an abortion without parental consent. So, if they can consent to sex, they should be able to consent to marriage. That will be the argument, I think. Age limits will be pushed lower and lower gradually, eventually enabling pederast marriage…

that can’t happen. The state considers marriage to be a ‘contract’. Contracts can only be made between legal adults. So a 16 year old can’t legally sign a contract for marriage without parental permission in some states. So although there is no criminal prosecution for 16 yr olds having sex with another 16 yr old (both minors) there is for a minor with an adult.

 

[vsedriver]

I almost wish civil marriage would become so egalitarian that it becomes meaningless, so perhaps everyone could see how ridiculous the idea of “equal rights” is, and it could be restarted as how it was originally meant to be.

I think the state should stop discriminating against anyone who wants to be married. There is no state expectation of sexual activities in a marriage. No state expection that the spouses will love each other. It is a civil contract and therefore should be open to any consent adults. Therefore I should be able to marry my elderly mother, declare her a dependent and put her on my health plan. Or she could do the same for me which ever one has the most money.

After all, the only difference between my mother and I and two lesbians is that my mother and I are close blood relations. So why is being a close blood relation an excuse to prevent me from having access to marital benefits?

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

that can’t happen. The state considers marriage to be a ‘contract’. Contracts can only be made between legal adults. So a 16 year old can’t legally sign a contract for marriage without parental permission in some states. So although there is no criminal prosecution for 16 yr olds having sex with another 16 yr old (both minors) there is for a minor with an adult.

As noted earlier, some states allow minors under 16 to get married with permission of the court, though all states have a minimum age. So it is feasible that marriage age could be lowered; that would only require lowering of the minimum age and court permission. The reality of the situation is that it is very unlikely that it would be lowered lower than 12 (ballpark figure for sexuality maturity for girls), and that it would only be allowed under very specific circumstances. Anything lower is likely to cause a major outcry.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

I think the state should stop discriminating against anyone who wants to be married. There is no state expectation of sexual activities in a marriage. No state expection that the spouses will love each other. It is a civil contract and therefore should be open to any consent adults. Therefore I should be able to marry my elderly mother, declare her a dependent and put her on my health plan. Or she could do the same for me which ever one has the most money.

I like to think things through, and have been pondering over this very issue for a while. Legal “marriage” is actually to the point in the U.S. where it has nothing to do with marriage as defined by the Church. There are no requirements/expectations of the gender of the people involved, sex, children, etc. and can be ended whenever the parties decided to end it. It’s not marriage; it’s purely a legal contract.

Two paths can be taken. The more realistic of the two is that the legal contract should not be referred to as marriage, preferably by the state, and especially by the Church. The complete disconnect, though, will allow for situations like polygamy and further immoral behavior.

The other path is to continue to call it marriage and fight for restrictions. It doesn’t appear that will happen anymore, give that the federal government is leaving it to the states to decide, and the states are not likely to remove “rights” already given to their citizens.

 

[holyrood]

Every era has it’s problems, and often when we look back we only see the good.

the solution needs to be found as we move forward into the future, **not in an overly romanticized memory of decades past. Turning back the clock and dehumanizing minorities, exploiting the labor of women and children, making rape, abuse, and out of wedlock pregnancy something that we just don’t talk about **won’t help.

These are the kinds of posts that I find incredibly offensive: the character assassination and assumptions, that if someone says, “There’s a problem now,” they’re then accused of seeing only the good, having romanticized visions of the past (kinda borders on accusing someone of being thoughtless, stupid, and ignorant of previous eras’ issues), and wanting to, or at least not caring if we, dehumanize others, exploit women, and even start turning a blind eye to rape and abuse!

I give people credit for being able to see clearly that we have made progress in some areas while slipping in others; of being able to see that we need to keep the good we’ve achieved while fixing the problems we now have.

I hope they do, because then we will see the LGBT hypocrisy …
The interesting thing is too is gay/bisexual people are not exactly friendly to transgendered people.

As a result of knowing someone deeply into ‘polyamory,’ yes, it is true that many people, LGBTSUV and however many other letters we need to keep adding, and their supporters, are ironically against redefining marriage outside of what they want. Yes, it is hypocrisy.

that can’t happen. The state considers marriage to be a ‘contract’. Contracts can only be made between legal adults. So a 16 year old can’t legally sign a contract for marriage without parental permission in some states.

If we can redefine marriage, we can redefine contract. If we can redefine marriage, really, we can redefine anything. Slave, person–oh, wait, we already redefined person so that it no longer actually means, ‘human being’–freedom, work, freedom of religion… The world is their oyster. Although we’ll have to ask what world and oyster actually mean.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

These are the kinds of posts that I find incredibly offensive: the character assassination and assumptions, that if someone says, “There’s a problem now,” they’re then accused of seeing only the good, having romanticized visions of the past (kinda borders on accusing someone of being thoughtless, stupid, and ignorant of previous eras’ issues), and wanting to, or at least not caring if we, dehumanize others, exploit women, and even start turning a blind eye to rape and abuse!

Read what I responded to and what I actually wrote. I responded to the idea that things were so much better back then. The truth is they weren’t. Rather than pining for the past we need to move forward to solve our current issues. And I did say that every era had its problems. I also took issue with the idea posted by JimG that black people were better off during the days of Jim Crowe because they were more likely to have married parents.

 

[RachelKayla]

the same was said when there were more interracial dating

 

[RachelKayla]

think i know now why i am Episcopalian and not Catholic. to use the bible to justify ingnorance or hate, is a sin in my book. it has been used to justify anti-semitism and the belief that the mentally ill are possessed by demons The Priest that baptised me in 1998 was gay ( not that i knew that at the time or would have cared);

 

[Memaw]

Well…Mary was supposedly 14 or 15 when she married Joseph/had a baby, right?
And Joseph was, according to tradition, MUCH older than she…
(“adult-child marriage”?!)

.

Mary was about the average age for marrying at that time and we have no real reason to believe that Joseph was a much older man. Artist have just portrayed him that way as a protector figure. God’s ways are not our ways. Mary was a virgin before during and after the birth of her son, Jesus. All that has NOTHING to do with the subject at hand. God Bless, Memaw

 

[Psych77]

Marriage, in it’s traditional form (please note that the ancient Greeks, who are constantly brought up by gay advocates as having accepted and celebrated homosexuality, never considered it marriage) has always been marked by 4 distinguishing features (as far as I can tell):

1. Sexual license - although at any time in history there was some presence of premarital/nonmarital sex, society as a whole considered this to be illegitimate.  Through marriage, the couple gained the sanction of society to become sexually active together, with the understanding that this relationship would be blessed and honored by society.

2. Permanence - it was considered that, once married, the couple was expected to be responsible to each other for life.  They were now considered to be family, preventing either from leaving the other with responsibilities and no support.

3. Reproduction - although not explicitly stated in all cases, the early conception of marriage was the social and state recognition of a reproductive unit - a minimum of one man and one woman.  It was the establishment by social ritual of the foundation of a biological family, and as sexual license was granted, and since sexual intercourse is the means by which offspring are gained, it was assumed by all - the couple, the officiating party, and society as a whole - that a biological family would result.  In fact, it was for the stability of the resulting biological family that the ritual hallowing of the marriage was establized in the first place.

4. Exclusivity - It has been accepted as a rule by society in Roman and post Roman Europe and in the majority of other societies (not all) that the sexual relationship between the two married parties is to be exclusive to those two parties.  Even in societies where polygamy is sanctioned (thus, unconscionably, instituting a sexual double standard) at least the women are expected to limit their sexual activity to their own husband.  At any rate, in the tradition of western European civilization, marriage has demanded, in the eyes of society in general, rejection of any sexual partners outside the marriage.  While affairs have never been unknown - in fact have in many situations have been common - they were not socially sanctioned by the overt culture.

Now, let us look at what has happened in modern culture:

1. Sexual license is no longer a distinguishing feature in marriage according to mainstream society for the simple reason that mainstream society now views any consensual sexual congress to be legitimate.  Marriage therefore confers no change.

2. Permanence - we now have no fault divorce in all 50 states, and mainstream society does not bat an eye when someone divorces their spouse for no other reason than "he/she wasn't doing it for me anymore."  Either party to a marriage can unilaterally end the marriage at will.  Society exerts no pressure on a couple to remain together for life, and has no expectation that they will do so.

3. Reproduction - well, we can point to the overturning of the, up to now, universal male-female nature of marriage across history with the recent creation of a "right" to marry whatever sex you want.  But we don't have to look at something that recent.  The fact is that society has been gearing up for this for a long time.  Ever since the general acceptance of contraceptives, sex has been separated from reproduction in the public mind, and now the decision to get married is considered to be entirely separate from the decision to have children.  "Silly Catholics, marriage isn't about reproduction, it's about sex!  Only, we could already have sex before we got married, so why are we getting married again?"

4. Exclusivity - Well, society still expects this, for the most part.  Most of us still see affairs as illicit and cruel to the cuckolded partner.  But how long will this last?  After all, real sexual exclusivity is not expected.  You can have sex with someone else (probably a lot of someones) before you get married.  And if you get sick of your spouse, you can always get divorced and then have sex with as many other people as you want to after your marriage ends!  How long until the majority of people start reasoning that this limited period of sexual exclusivity is kind of arbitrary, and leave it behind (there is already a minority of people who have embraced this idea).

As far as I am concerned, the idea of marriage being limited to a couple (two people) is really just a function of the “Exclusivity” property. Once that is overturned (in society,not in law), there will be no problem with people marrying as many people as they want.

Marriage will have no defining characteristics. And, people will stop doing it, stop demanding it, stop caring about it.

And, I’m sorry if it’s wrong, but I look forward to that. Because when the people who demand that marriage mean nothing (and even though they do not realize that is what they are demanding, it is the result of their demands) are done with it, and have left it behind, then those who really care about it, and want it to mean something, can pick it up. We will be called primitive, they will say that we are clinging to a stone-age social institution that is irrelevant. I don’t care what they say. When they have finished ravaging it and have left it to us, we can make it MARRIAGE again!

 

[Vanny]

With regard to the OP’s question, I see no reason…zero…why more than two people should be prohibited from marrying in the current environment. The combination of gay marriage being allowed and no-fault divorce laws has eviscerated the concept of traditional marriage in a legal context. Gender is not longer relevant in marriage, sex is not longer relevant in marriage, children are no longer relevant in marriage, etc. All of the elements of traditional marriage have essentially been thrown out in law. So why does the number “2” become the end all and the dividing line for deciding who should marry who?

Unlike gay marriage, polygamy (and variants thereof, always involving both sexes in some combination) actually has a basis in tradition. Limiting marriage to two people at this point is purely arbitrary in secular law.

I think you hit the nail right on the head.
When my 18 mo old grandson is in highschool-we’ll be debating polygamous/polyamourous marriages(probably before that)

 

[Memaw]

Marriage, in it’s traditional form (please note that the ancient Greeks, who are constantly brought up by gay advocates as having accepted and celebrated homosexuality, never considered it marriage) has always been marked by 4 distinguishing features (as far as I can tell):

1. Sexual license - although at any time in history there was some presence of premarital/nonmarital sex, society as a whole considered this to be illegitimate.  Through marriage, the couple gained the sanction of society to become sexually active together, with the understanding that this relationship would be blessed and honored by society.

2. Permanence - it was considered that, once married, the couple was expected to be responsible to each other for life.  They were now considered to be family, preventing either from leaving the other with responsibilities and no support.

3. Reproduction - although not explicitly stated in all cases, the early conception of marriage was the social and state recognition of a reproductive unit - a minimum of one man and one woman.  It was the establishment by social ritual of the foundation of a biological family, and as sexual license was granted, and since sexual intercourse is the means by which offspring are gained, it was assumed by all - the couple, the officiating party, and society as a whole - that a biological family would result.  In fact, it was for the stability of the resulting biological family that the ritual hallowing of the marriage was establized in the first place.

4. Exclusivity - It has been accepted as a rule by society in Roman and post Roman Europe and in the majority of other societies (not all) that the sexual relationship between the two married parties is to be exclusive to those two parties.  Even in societies where polygamy is sanctioned (thus, unconscionably, instituting a sexual double standard) at least the women are expected to limit their sexual activity to their own husband.  At any rate, in the tradition of western European civilization, marriage has demanded, in the eyes of society in general, rejection of any sexual partners outside the marriage.  While affairs have never been unknown - in fact have in many situations have been common - they were not socially sanctioned by the overt culture.

Now, let us look at what has happened in modern culture:

1. Sexual license is no longer a distinguishing feature in marriage according to mainstream society for the simple reason that mainstream society now views any consensual sexual congress to be legitimate.  Marriage therefore confers no change.

2. Permanence - we now have no fault divorce in all 50 states, and mainstream society does not bat an eye when someone divorces their spouse for no other reason than "he/she wasn't doing it for me anymore."  Either party to a marriage can unilaterally end the marriage at will.  Society exerts no pressure on a couple to remain together for life, and has no expectation that they will do so.

3. Reproduction - well, we can point to the overturning of the, up to now, universal male-female nature of marriage across history with the recent creation of a "right" to marry whatever sex you want.  But we don't have to look at something that recent.  The fact is that society has been gearing up for this for a long time.  Ever since the general acceptance of contraceptives, sex has been separated from reproduction in the public mind, and now the decision to get married is considered to be entirely separate from the decision to have children.  "Silly Catholics, marriage isn't about reproduction, it's about sex!  Only, we could already have sex before we got married, so why are we getting married again?"

4. Exclusivity - Well, society still expects this, for the most part.  Most of us still see affairs as illicit and cruel to the cuckolded partner.  But how long will this last?  After all, real sexual exclusivity is not expected.  You can have sex with someone else (probably a lot of someones) before you get married.  And if you get sick of your spouse, you can always get divorced and then have sex with as many other people as you want to after your marriage ends!  How long until the majority of people start reasoning that this limited period of sexual exclusivity is kind of arbitrary, and leave it behind (there is already a minority of people who have embraced this idea).

As far as I am concerned, the idea of marriage being limited to a couple (two people) is really just a function of the “Exclusivity” property. Once that is overturned (in society,not in law), there will be no problem with people marrying as many people as they want.

Marriage will have no defining characteristics. And, people will stop doing it, stop demanding it, stop caring about it.

And, I’m sorry if it’s wrong, but I look forward to that. Because when the people who demand that marriage mean nothing (and even though they do not realize that is what they are demanding, it is the result of their demands) are done with it, and have left it behind, then those who really care about it, and want it to mean something, can pick it up. We will be called primitive, they will say that we are clinging to a stone-age social institution that is irrelevant. I don’t care what they say. When they have finished ravaging it and have left it to us, we can make it MARRIAGE again!

AMEN, God Bless, Memaw