New Hampshire Legalizes Marriage for Same-Sex Couples

By Nathan Black|Christian Post Reporter

E-mail
Print
RSS
digg Facebook Twitter Stumble Reddit del.ico.us Buzz Share
Text

New Hampshire became the sixth state to legalize same-sex marriage on Wednesday.

Gov. John Lynch signed the bill, approving revisions that better protect religious institutions and their employees against lawsuits if they refuse to perform same-sex marriages.

The measure was passed by the Senate and House earlier today.

New Hampshire, which is traditionally conservative, now joins Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, and Maine in allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry.

"Today, we're standing up for the liberties of same-sex couples by making clear they will receive the same rights, responsibilities, and respect under New Hampshire law," said Lynch, according to the Boston Globe.

Last month, Lynch said he would sign the same-sex marriage bill if the Legislature added clearer language stating that religious organizations and individuals working with such institutions cannot be forced to sanction same-sex weddings under the law.

Although legislative leaders were expected to quickly adopt the changes, the state House voted against the revisions.

Today, the House voted 198-176 to pass a newly revised bill, which specifies that all religious organizations, associations or societies have exclusive control over their religious doctrines, policies, teachings and beliefs on marriage.

It also states that church-related organizations that serve charitable or educational purposes are exempt from having to provide insurance and other benefits to same sex spouses of employees.

Lynch has expressed support for traditional marriage but said he decided to view the issue "through a broader lens," as reported by The Associated Press.

Traditional marriage supporters have accused Lynch of using the proposal for revisions as a smokescreen to change his mind.

Next Story : Judge: Schools Can Hold Graduation in Church

Most Popular

Viewed
Commented
Blogged

Sort by: Newest | Oldest | Agree | Disagree

All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Christian Post or its staff.

1 | 2

Prophet »

Tue Jun 09, 2009 12:47 pm Agree: 1 Disagree: 2

alockslee,

Yeah, you wouldn't want anyone giving you a conscience, right?
Daniel Paul »

Tue Jun 09, 2009 10:56 am Agree: 1 Disagree: 3

"God made Steve, too.

50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44..."

Badummm ... ching!
Daniel Paul »

Tue Jun 09, 2009 10:55 am Agree: 1 Disagree: 3

"Just think when the US Supreme Court rules same sex marriage is a fundamental right guaranteed under the Equal Protection Clause and Civil Rights Act, the matter will be settled and the folks whining against it will have to shut up. "

Actually, the Courts have already ruled years ago that it is a matter of states rights. It would be a violation of separation of state and federal powers for them to do what you are suggesting.
believer »

Tue Jun 09, 2009 8:53 am Agree: 1 Disagree: 2

klm, I think the way Washington State is going is the way to do it. Allowing two consenting adults living in the same household and each others primary caregivers the same legal rights and benefits as any married heterosexual couple regardless of their genders, sexual orientations, or sexual intentions. My sense is the reason some are opposed to this is they see it as a stepping stone to same-sex marriage.
klm68 »

Tue Jun 09, 2009 2:49 am Agree: 3 Disagree: 1

God made Steve, too.

50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44...

In Washington state the elected representatives recently passed a bill that will give registered domestic partners the same rights as married couples, without calling it marriage. There's a petition drive to put a referendum on the ballot to take those rights away (they haven't been granted yet, pending the outcome of the petition drive).

The petition drive is being led by a man who has been divorced twice and married three times. Public records show that at least one previous wife took out a protection order against him, for domestic violence. From whom exactly is he protecting the sanctity of marriage?
Alockslee »

Mon Jun 08, 2009 8:49 pm Agree: 8 Disagree: 2

Great Job!!!! One by One the Fascist Fundamentalist and Evil Evangelicals are being shut down and Equal Rights are being given to people.

Just think when the US Supreme Court rules same sex marriage is a fundamental right guaranteed under the Equal Protection Clause and Civil Rights Act, the matter will be settled and the folks whining against it will have to shut up.

Hopefully the ruling allowing it will be soon and then another ridiculous religious belief will be put aside and the secular US will be one step closer to returning to the Constitutional model envisioned by the secular humanist forefathers that founded this great nation!

TFR
Prophet »

Sat Jun 06, 2009 7:58 pm Agree: 1 Disagree: 5

Wilerness,

Amen. Glory to our God who is able to deliver us from all evil. The One who can set us free from the bondage of our sin. He has done so on the cross. But it is only effective for those who receive it.
Wilderness1 »

Sat Jun 06, 2009 7:06 pm Agree: 1 Disagree: 6

Look at all the flagging. I will post mine again.

"The eyes of the LORD are in every place, beholding the evil and the good" (Pr 15:3.)

Homosexual activity is evil. Are you enslaved in such wickedness? You can be set free. If you have ears to hear, humble yourself and repent, call upon the name of the Lord today.
Prophet »

Sat Jun 06, 2009 1:01 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 1

believer,

Much like english has only one word for love. I love my wife. I love my dad. I love ice cream. One word, three different meanings.
believer »

Sat Jun 06, 2009 9:40 am Agree: 1 Disagree: 1

chicago, the Hebrew language only has one word for love unlike the Greek which has three and some even say four, David saying his love for Jonathan was more than his love for a woman had absolutely no sexual connotation whatsoever, but simply expressed the intensity of his love for Jonathan, if he would have spoken in Greek I believe he would have used the word phileo(brotherly love) and perhaps even agape(Christ-like love) to share how much he loved Jonathan. Plus, as a Christian should our love for Christ not be more than our love for a man if we're a woman and a woman if we're a man?
Prophet »

Sat Jun 06, 2009 2:33 am Agree: 1 Disagree: 1

Chicago,

Kissing is a cultural thing. Even Paul in the New Testament says to greet one another with a holy kiss. And there are cultures that still greet each other with a kiss.
And David couldn't have been homosexual. He married a woman, and lusted after, and committed adultery with, a woman. He was hetero to the bone.
chicago24 »

Sat Jun 06, 2009 12:24 am Agree: 2 Disagree: 0

Beleiver: Yeah, even I know it's "pushing it" to claim that David and Jonathan were involved in a bona-fide homosexual relationship. I know that their account was written to emphasize their dedication to each other in a time of mutual affliction.

Still, David was 'handsome and ruddy' who made a covenant with Jonathan, told him that his love for him surpassed that of women, they cried together and kissed one another . . . wow . . that sounds like what I PRAY for! :)
believer »

Fri Jun 05, 2009 9:12 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 1

chicago, while I agree that the lineage of Christ does have some people who truly missed the mark, but I do have to disagree with your premise that David was involved in a same-sex sexual relationship with Jonathan, but I also agree that the proof is not simply because David was in the lineage of Christ.
chicago24 »

Fri Jun 05, 2009 6:14 pm Agree: 1 Disagree: 0

Believer: I see your point about the author simply wanting to emphasize the lineage from the House of David -- and I fully agree with you.

I was merely pointing out David's multiple wives because, in another post, I had insinuated that David had had a same-sex, loving relationship with Jonathan. Another reader responded that how ridiculous it would be for Jesus' lineage to have been associated with anyone who had had a same-sex relationship.
(Then someone deleted my original comment -- shame on them. You know I would never post anything that warrents deleting here)
So, that's why I brought up the polygamy of David. Yes, Jesus' lineage was associated with all sorts of folks with questionable pasts. After all, that's what made him as God made man.

I'm still a little perturbed that someone deleted me when I've always been so careful . . .
believer »

Fri Jun 05, 2009 1:21 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 1

chicago, plus the passage you cited simply shows the family lineage of Christ and shows the fulfillment of the prophecy that Christ would come from the House of David and if you look closely you'll see there are some names in that lineage that certainly do not exemplify holiness in any way.
believer »

Fri Jun 05, 2009 1:18 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 1

ggirl, but at the same time we live in a democracy which allows us to speak and vote our hearts and minds, so I have no problem with people sharing their views and voting in a way that supports their beliefs on an issue regardless if it is based on their religious or spiritual beliefs. And at the same time I totally respect your right to disagree with others views and to both voice and vote that disagreement.
believer »

Fri Jun 05, 2009 1:12 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Flagged as inappropriate. show chicago, the real irony here is that people can't see that no where in the Bible does God ordain any other form of marriage but one, that of one man and one woman. Plus, David also ordered the murder of Urriah and committed adultery with Bathsheba, so does that mean God condones murder and adultery? hide
chicago24 »

Fri Jun 05, 2009 1:04 pm Agree: 1 Disagree: 1

I keep hearing how God's original design was only for one man and one woman in marriage.

Yet, at the beginning of Matthew's gospel, the author takes great pains to validate Christ's holiness by tracing the genealogy of Jesus to King David -- a polygamist who had at least eight wives.

I'm not advocating polygamy, but does anyone else see the irony in this?
Gnosticgirl »

Fri Jun 05, 2009 12:26 pm Agree: 1 Disagree: 0

I think what needs to be said here is that no one is denying any religious person's view on the matter. Many christians believe homosexuality is a sin, some even go so far as to say or suggest it should be punishable by death. But many disagree with that line of thinking, many do not follow in the faith that many here do. So, while I can totally appreciate a religion dictating the laws of that religion to their followers they have no right to dictate those laws to people who do not willingly follow their faith. So, even if one believes their God will condemn homosexuals, it matters not in the eyes of civil law - because though civil law and religious law will often times run parallel, the vary nature of having to govern a diverse group of people and diverse ideals / beliefs, means civil law will sometimes not accommodate religious laws in the civil arena. The law must protect equally the christian, atheist, buddhist, scientologist, pagan, hindu, sheik(sp), etc. even gay christians, atheists, buddhists, scientologists, pagans, hindus,sheiks..etc. :)
believer »

Thu Jun 04, 2009 10:59 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 1

Flagged as inappropriate. show al, it really doesn't matter what we believe when it comes to marriage, but only what God believes since He instituted it in the first place and His original and only design for marriage is one man and one woman united as one for life in His sight and He ordains no other form of marriage but that. So even if same-sex marriage does become the law of the land in the sight of God same-sex couples will still not be married and in fact in His sight will be seen as living in sin. hide
Mike85 »

Thu Jun 04, 2009 10:44 pm Agree: 2 Disagree: 0

Alocsee, thank you for your comments. I cannot tell you what a breath of fresh air it brings!
Daniel Paul »

Thu Jun 04, 2009 9:59 pm Agree: 1 Disagree: 4

"Any arguments made from a religious basis has no enforcement value in a secular society "

They do as long as I vote....

America is not a secular society. It is a diverse society with an election process.
DelightntheLord »

Thu Jun 04, 2009 9:55 pm Agree: 3 Disagree: 2

"Actually, I seem to recall from my reading..."

I can only imagine the things you read from the bias of your posting.

"And many will follow their destructive ways, because of whom the way of truth will be blasphemed."

And this will lead to:

"Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and kill you, and you will be hated by all nations for My name's sake.
And then many will be offended, will betray one another, and will hate one another.
Then many false prophets will rise up and deceive many.
And because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold."

Thanks for your contribution, RB.
Prophet »

Thu Jun 04, 2009 9:47 pm Agree: 1 Disagree: 2

rhi

"Actually, I seem to recall from my reading that same sex relationships were outlawed and punishable by death a short time after Christianity became the official relgion of the Roman Empire (4th Century C.E.)"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

As it should. But that's not the point. The point is that the epistle to the Romans was written during Nero's reign. Homosexuality was practiced both in committed and non-committed relationships. Paul was addressing homosexuality as a whole as being a sin.
Alockslee »

Thu Jun 04, 2009 9:20 pm Agree: 10 Disagree: 1

Mike85 Â»Thu Jun 04, 2009 3:43 pm
believer, a domestic partnership and a civil union are two very different things for one. Two, I said if I have all the rights and benefits, its a marriage, and thats what it will be called. My partner will be my husband, because regardless of what you call it, it is a marriage! A rose by any other name is a rose.
-----------------------------------------------------------
In response: Mike hit the nail squarely upon the head with this comment! In fact there is a distinct semantically and without any difference. Some here seem to be so stuck on traditional use they can't see the separate but equal argument that was present in the Civil Rights cases and fail to recognize the exact fact pattern of it.

When you further realize that equality of same sex couples is under secular law and has absolutely nothing to do with your religious views perhaps you will be able to understand what the issues really are.

Any arguments made from a religious basis has no enforcement value in a secular society and thinking that you can continue to force your religious beliefs and practices on another person is not going to stand up. It has nothing to do with your religious beliefs it has to do with the equality and civil rights of the person who is seeking their rights under the law. The precedent laid down under the progeny of case law is that separate but equal is not equal. Please try to understand that you can't force under any legal method and/or enactment by popular vote of a law or laws that infringe upon the equal rights of another.

It can't be made any clearer and it appears that no matter what is said/written that people who are fundamentalist/evangelical can grasp the fact that religious views are not the law of the land and will not be enforceable upon anyone else Period!!!

Regardless of what a person believes, it does not allow anyone else to compel another person to either accept and then follow religious practices, as the law of the same Constitution that you rely upon for religious freedom also prevents you and others like those fundamentalist/evangelical alignment from making another person act in a manner that is approved of under that belief system.

So Mike is correct and I hope what I have written will finally convince you that your efforts will not gain the total overthrow of the Constitution nor the case law which is the basis for the current laws of this country. You don't have an argument to prevent same sex marriage that is either viable, valid or enforceable and you need to sit down, breathe and accept the reality that fundamentalist/evangelicals aren't in charge nor can control this or any other civilization on this planet.
TFR
Rhi Bran »

Thu Jun 04, 2009 9:12 pm Agree: 4 Disagree: 1

Actually, I seem to recall from my reading that same sex relationships were outlawed and punishable by death a short time after Christianity became the official relgion of the Roman Empire (4th Century C.E.)
DelightntheLord »

Thu Jun 04, 2009 8:47 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 2

Prophet,

Since there is nothing "new under the sun" homosexual marriage may have been prevailent in Noah's time, before the flood:

"And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all. Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed."
Luke 17:26-30

Keywords here; "they married wives, they were given in marriage".
The point being made that man can't be given in marriage and the verse already states that "they married wives", so somehow men were given to each other in marriage.

So same sex marriage as in the days of Noah will be going on when the Son of Man returns and is a sign of His near return.

Check this out, scroll to the bottom of the site to read.
http://www.delusionresistance.org/christian/noah03%20-%20homosexuality.html

food for thought
Alockslee »

Thu Jun 04, 2009 8:43 pm Agree: 7 Disagree: 1

rolln4him
gnostic;
There's been no society that has legitimized gay marriage until the last 10 years. Even those are rare and few and won't last long. America is the prize. It's filthy, backwards, nonsensical lifestyle that does no good for society. 1/3 are apt to abuse children and they have health issue galore because of the unhealthy dimension of their sex act.
--------------------------------------------------------
In response:
Could you PLEASE back up your blanket statements with some real valid facts? You appear like many other who simply parrot out fallacies but fail to put forth anything to support this absolutely ridiculous assumptions.

If you were to actually read and understand history you would see that every major civilization had gay and lesbian relationships and even marriages. I know it is difficult to remove and set aside the conditioning that prevents you from accepting reality and to live in a completely fantasy based existence but there is help for you if you will simply listen and not engage in jerk reactions to anything that doesn't come from a pulpit or the version of the Bible you happen to be lugging around at the moment. Try to listen to people who actually aren't brainwashed with fundamental/evangelical rhetoric and who are capable of thinking clearly and without the need to use Bibliomancy to get through the day and allow yourself a chance to use the brain you were born with.

That is not a slam but simply a wake up call for you to recognize that you aren't allowing factual reality to enter in your thinking and then you will finally be able to function without having to reject anything and everything that you hear,see, read and are told by those who know what if reality and not fantasy.

TFR
DelightntheLord »

Thu Jun 04, 2009 8:25 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 1

The same god who initiated the sexual revolution in the 1960's...all you need is "love".

See how well THAT turned out.
Prophet »

Thu Jun 04, 2009 8:17 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 1

rolln,

"There's been no society that has legitimized gay marriage until the last 10 years."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

To correct you...the Roman society did. As a matter of fact Nero (who was emporer during the time that Paul wrote the epistle) performed a number of gay marriages. Thus the reason why Paul wrote in Romans that homosexuality was a sin. He was talking about both committed and non-committed homosexuality.
Prophet »

Thu Jun 04, 2009 8:14 pm Agree: 2 Disagree: 1

" Mine smiles that one of his creations has found love with another, and it is mutual, self-giving, and helps each other grow."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Yes, your god does smile as he sees how easily he tricks the simple minded into believing the lie of homosexuality.
Mike85 »

Thu Jun 04, 2009 7:58 pm Agree: 3 Disagree: 0

Perhaps your god. Mine smiles that one of his creations has found love with another, and it is mutual, self-giving, and helps each other grow.
DelightntheLord »

Thu Jun 04, 2009 7:12 pm Agree: 1 Disagree: 2

>>"A rose by any other name is a rose."

A rose I can recognize. Husband and husband or wife and wife is utter nonsense. God just laughs.
Gnosticgirl »

Thu Jun 04, 2009 5:50 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Are you speaking of all LGBT people Rollin or just a particular part of them? I am inclined to not trust your research methods, though you do provide some very interesting food for thought. I think in the end, it would serve us better if we did site more of where our info comes from, don't you? If it is just an opinion, than say that. :)
believer »

Thu Jun 04, 2009 4:39 pm Agree: 1 Disagree: 1

Flagged as inappropriate. show mike85, call it what you want, but in the sight of God it will never be seen as a marriage! hide
Mike85 »

Thu Jun 04, 2009 4:16 pm Agree: 2 Disagree: 1

Rolln, the first stat was gained using completely false study tactics, so you're lying. As for the second, ANYONE who is promiscuous would have poor health. The gay couples fighting for marriage equality are not being promiscuous, so your argument is dead in the water.
rolln4him »

Thu Jun 04, 2009 3:48 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 5

Flagged as inappropriate. show gnostic; There's been no society that has legitimized gay marriage until the last 10 years. Even those are rare and few and won't last long. America is the prize. It's filthy, backwards, nonsensical lifestyle that does no good for society. 1/3 are apt to abuse children and they have health issue galore because of the unhealthy dimension of their sex act. hide
Mike85 »

Thu Jun 04, 2009 3:43 pm Agree: 2 Disagree: 0

believer, a domestic partnership and a civil union are two very different things for one. Two, I said if I have all the rights and benefits, its a marriage, and thats what it will be called. My partner will be my husband, because regardless of what you call it, it is a marriage! A rose by any other name is a rose.
Gnosticgirl »

Thu Jun 04, 2009 3:28 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Good Afternoon Rollin,
The LGBT community has been fighting for various civil rights since the 1960s. There is also the Stonewall Riots I could mention 1969, Harvey Milk and his political movement in the mid - late 1970s (until his assassination). So, this is not something that has come up in the last 20 years or so.
believer »

Thu Jun 04, 2009 2:35 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 1

mike85, I'm opposed to same-sex marriage because it woefully violates the Word of God. Plus, are you now saying that you'd be satisfied with domestic partnerships if you knew with all certainty it provided all the same legal rights and benefits given to a married heterosexual couple?
believer »

Thu Jun 04, 2009 2:31 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

mike85, there are many in the black community who would have no problem with their children staying in their own neighborhoods rather than being bussed across town if they knew with all certainty their children would get the same quality education and opportunities as every other child regardless of their color or economic status.
rolln4him »

Thu Jun 04, 2009 2:22 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Flagged as inappropriate. show 20 years ago, the homosexual community was some subculture lying in the deep, dark recesses of our society - nobody really bothered them and they pretty much kept to themselves. But since they've come out of the "closet", they've been in our face and they're not afraid to sue, name-call, intimidate, threaten and scare (try to anyway) those that are opposed to their perverse lifestyle. We must stand fast to put these perverts back into the closet where they belong; otherwise they will not stop until everyone stays silent about their sick behavior or they accept them - period. Stand now or be like the people of Germany who stay silent during the Nazi takeover. Your choice. hide
Mike85 »

Thu Jun 04, 2009 2:18 pm Agree: 2 Disagree: 0

Logic, here's my feeling on that: If I had the exact same rights as marriage, it would essentially be a marriage and that is what I would call it. Calling it a different name just to make people feel better about it seems quite idiotic to me. In terms of your analogy: If black schools were given the same funding as white schools, would it still have been OK to segregate the two populations? Having a civil union for gays and marriage for straights, regardless as to whether or not the marriage was between a devout Christian or militant atheists, is still a differentiation that seems unnecessary.

I would say that if these "christians" honestly have a problem with gay marriage because they claim it goes against the religios institution, then it would seem they'd have a problem with atheists taking part in it. if they wanted to reserve marriage as a strictly religious institution and the benefits that come from the civil marriage contract be called a civil union, I'd be fine with that.
believer »

Thu Jun 04, 2009 2:04 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

mickeyc, "just as I thought no verse to back up your statement", this spoken by an individual who uses a passage of scripture that has absolutely nothing to do with marriage to justify the sin of same-sex marriage."
DelightntheLord »

Thu Jun 04, 2009 1:47 pm Agree: 2 Disagree: 0

Flagged as inappropriate. show "Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake." "And you will be hated by all for My name's sake. But he who endures to the end shall be saved." Thanks, Mickey for the opportunity to be blessed through your reviling! hide
MickeyC »

Thu Jun 04, 2009 1:42 pm Agree: 3 Disagree: 0

"Repent of homosexuality, Mickey."

Since I've never claimed to be homosexual, you've just shown that lies are all you have. When will you ask God to forgive you for all of your hate of others?, Delight?
DelightntheLord »

Thu Jun 04, 2009 1:40 pm Agree: 1 Disagree: 2

Flagged as inappropriate. show Repent of homosexuality, Mickey. hide
MickeyC »

Thu Jun 04, 2009 1:20 pm Agree: 2 Disagree: 0

Flagged as inappropriate. show "A lukewarm church that Jesus will vomit from His mouth and say to them "Depart from me, you who work inquity." Your response merely continues to prove that you are not nor have you ever been a Christian, delight. Why do you bother to post here? You are so filled with hate. hide
DelightntheLord »

Thu Jun 04, 2009 1:14 pm Agree: 2 Disagree: 3

>>>"Then address what a church who marries a same sex couples is..."<<

A lukewarm church that Jesus will vomit from His mouth and say to them "Depart from me, you who work inquity."

Not the answer you expected, but in which case it wouldn't matter the "label" given to these "marriages" performed. It is all for naught...like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
MickeyC »

Thu Jun 04, 2009 1:07 pm Agree: 3 Disagree: 1

"20 years ago, the homosexual community was some subculture lying the the deep, dark recesses of our society - nobody really bothered them and they pretty much kept to themselves. But since they've come out of the "closet", they've been in our face and they're not afraid to sue, name-call, intimidate, threaten and scare (try to anyway) those that are opposed to their perverse lifestyle. We must stand fast to put these perverts back into the closet where they belong; otherwise they will not stop until everyone stays silent about their sick behavior or they accept them - period. Stand now or be like the people of Germany who stay silent during the Nazi takeover. Your choice.

Boy, gays sure have you scared. Begs the question as to why? Don't bother to answer, we already know. LOL

Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging comments that are unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable.
Contact Us if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.

Comment on this story