Liberty University Law School Dean: Gay Marriage is 'Beginning...

Aug 5, 2014 Full story: Cybercast News Service 311

Mathew D. Staver, dean of the Liberty University School of Law, said that efforts to change the definition of marriage to include same-sex "marriage" would be like trying to re-define the law of gravity, adding that, if it were tried, it would mark "the beginning of the end of Western civilization."

Read more
First Prev
of 16
Next Last
Batch 37 Pain Is Good

Southfield, MI

#1 Aug 5, 2014
He is right about the definition of "marriage". Words mean things. That being said, a State contract to facilitate legal access to make decisions as a couple is up to the individual State. The US Constitution does not make such contracts part of the Federal govt........
passing by

Salina, KS

#4 Aug 5, 2014
Batch 37 Pain Is Good wrote:
He is right about the definition of "marriage". Words mean things. That being said, a State contract to facilitate legal access to make decisions as a couple is up to the individual State. The US Constitution does not make such contracts part of the Federal govt........
Hon, I guess you aren't aware of this, but the federal courts have been of the understanding that the US Constitution has guaranteed us a right to marry for more than 50 years now. Marriage, even the legal recognition of it by the government, isn't a privilege handed down to us by the state, it is a right fundamental to us as individuals. It's a right that can only be denied to us by the state, if they can prove a compelling interest is served in doing so. In case you didn't know, there is no interest of the state, compelling or otherwise, in limiting our right to marry based on the sex of the person we are requesting to marry. The states have the authority to regulate marriage, that doesn't give them the power to regulate it in ways that violate the rights of the American citizens who live there. The state laws and amendments prohibiting same sex marriages are no more acceptable to the US Constitution than the laws and amendments prohibiting interracial marriages, they never should have been permitted to pass.
passing by

Salina, KS

#5 Aug 5, 2014
The people who should be absolutely horrified and downright offended by the good Dean Staver's insightful comments on this subject are those paying tuition to the Liberty University school of Law. If this is representative of the "legal education" you wanted, you're certainly getting your money's worth. If you wanted a law degree that people weren't going to snicker at if you claimed it as a qualification, this is what you get, sorry.
Batch 37 Pain Is Good

Southfield, MI

#6 Aug 5, 2014
passing by wrote:
<quoted text>Hon, I guess you aren't aware of this, but the federal courts have been of the understanding that the US Constitution has guaranteed us a right to marry for more than 50 years now. Marriage, even the legal recognition of it by the government, isn't a privilege handed down to us by the state, it is a right fundamental to us as individuals. It's a right that can only be denied to us by the state, if they can prove a compelling interest is served in doing so. In case you didn't know, there is no interest of the state, compelling or otherwise, in limiting our right to marry based on the sex of the person we are requesting to marry. The states have the authority to regulate marriage, that doesn't give them the power to regulate it in ways that violate the rights of the American citizens who live there. The state laws and amendments prohibiting same sex marriages are no more acceptable to the US Constitution than the laws and amendments prohibiting interracial marriages, they never should have been permitted to pass.
The Courts are only putting cases to the test of Constitutionality of the laws passed in the Country Sweetheart...... If you remember your govt classes, the legislative branch in the federal govt passes laws..... They do not issue licenses. The States do...... There has been no violation of rights by the States since the people decide what happens in their State. Marriage is not necessarily a right, if it were then brothers and sisters could marry as well as any other family combination...... That said, the word Marriage means something. It has been defined and, as I mentioned, it means things...... Now, to my point. The license issued by the State can be renamed for all citizens who want a legal device to take care of peoples home as intended. The word marriage should not be used by the State. The word marriage should be used by those who follow their faith in the venue they are accustom...... Now I know there are religious Gays out there and that relationship between them and their church or synagog is up to their congregation...... See? No violation of rights....... The separation of church and state remains sound.......
Batch 37 Pain Is Good

Southfield, MI

#7 Aug 5, 2014
passing by wrote:
The people who should be absolutely horrified and downright offended by the good Dean Staver's insightful comments on this subject are those paying tuition to the Liberty University school of Law. If this is representative of the "legal education" you wanted, you're certainly getting your money's worth. If you wanted a law degree that people weren't going to snicker at if you claimed it as a qualification, this is what you get, sorry.
I didn't think it would take long for a portion of the population to jump on this University....... Liberty has one of the finest law schools in the country...... It seems you are bigoted against a large portion of the Country who belief's include the fact that words means things.......
passing by

Salina, KS

#8 Aug 5, 2014
Batch 37 Pain Is Good wrote:
The Courts are only putting cases to the test of Constitutionality of the laws passed in the Country Sweetheart......
That is part of their job description, isn't it? The determination of whether acts by the Legislative, Executive and Judicial branches of the federal government and those of the states, are constitutionally acceptable? I
Batch 37 Pain Is Good wrote:
f you remember your govt classes, the legislative branch in the federal govt passes laws.....
No? Really?
Batch 37 Pain Is Good wrote:
They do not issue licenses.
Never said they did, hon.
Batch 37 Pain Is Good wrote:
The States do......
Uh-huh. Yes dear, since the issuance of marriage licenses is not spelled out as a regulatory power of the federal government, that authority falls to the states. We've already been here.
Batch 37 Pain Is Good wrote:
There has been no violation of rights by the States since the people decide what happens in their State.
Interesting leap, I'm just not all that sure how logical it was though. The state has the authority and the right to regulate the licensing of marriages, the people however, retain the rights to marry and equal protection under those regulations. While the people in many of the states have been given the right, by their state, to amend their state Constitutions pretty much in any way they see fit in regards to the regulation of marriage licenses,(or any other issue) if they can get people to vote for it. However, not even the voters can legislate in violation of the rights retained by the people under the US Constitution.
Batch 37 Pain Is Good wrote:
Marriage is not necessarily a right, if it were then brothers and sisters could marry as well as any other family combination......
It still is dear. Your phrase for the day is "limited right". As in the right to marry is a "limited right", because the right to marry can be denied if it serves a compelling interest of the state in doing so. Consanguineous breeding isn't a real good idea for the species and for those that won't or can't, marriage is a contract for those who would otherwise be legal strangers to one another, your siblings, parents, grandparents and even aunts and uncles already have a legal relationship with you. If you want any more rights than your existing legal relationship would entitle you, work it out on your own, it's not the state's concern.
Batch 37 Pain Is Good wrote:
That said, the word Marriage means something. It has been defined and, as I mentioned, it means things......
The word marriage has been used to recognize all sorts of relationships over its existence. The laws regulating it have on occasion been used to punish those some folk thought shouldn't be getting married. The bans on race mixing were the big one, but folks have also tried to deny marriage licenses to dead beat parents and serving felons, all to the same unsuccess.
Batch 37 Pain Is Good wrote:
Now, to my point. The license issued by the State can be renamed for all citizens who want a legal device to take care of peoples home as intended. The word marriage should not be used by the State. The word marriage should be used by those who follow their faith in the venue they are accustom...... Now I know there are religious Gays out there and that relationship between them and their church or synagog is up to their congregation...... See? No violation of rights....... The separation of church and state remains sound.......
You do realize that in order for all couples to be equal in the eyes of the law, all couples, past, present and future, would have to be "name to be determined later" licensed, regardless of their sexual make-up? Are you sure that the "best" solution you can come up with is to legally nullify every last marriage that has ever been entered into in favor of a "whatchamacallit", because some folk have "issues"?
passing by

Salina, KS

#10 Aug 5, 2014
Batch 37 Pain Is Good wrote:
<quoted text>I didn't think it would take long for a portion of the population to jump on this University....... Liberty has one of the finest law schools in the country...... It seems you are bigoted against a large portion of the Country who belief's include the fact that words means things.......
That can be your fantasy and you can even stick with it if you want, but if the quality of their education is judged by the quality of those providing it, Dean Matthew Staver would have a sane person asking for their money back, now.
Batch 37 Pain Is Good

Keego Harbor, MI

#12 Aug 5, 2014
passing by wrote:
<quoted text>That is part of their job description, isn't it? The determination of whether acts by the Legislative, Executive and Judicial branches of the federal government and those of the states, are constitutionally acceptable? I<quoted text>No? Really? <quoted text>Never said they did, hon. <quoted text>Uh-huh. Yes dear, since the issuance of marriage licenses is not spelled out as a regulatory power of the federal government, that authority falls to the states. We've already been here. <quoted text>Interesting leap, I'm just not all that sure how logical it was though. The state has the authority and the right to regulate the licensing of marriages, the people however, retain the rights to marry and equal protection under those regulations. While the people in many of the states have been given the right, by their state, to amend their state Constitutions pretty much in any way they see fit in regards to the regulation of marriage licenses,(or any other issue) if they can get people to vote for it. However, not even the voters can legislate in violation of the rights retained by the people under the US Constitution. <quoted text>It still is dear. Your phrase for the day is "limited right". As in the right to marry is a "limited right", because the right to marry can be denied if it serves a compelling interest of the state in doing so. Consanguineous breeding isn't a real good idea for the species and for those that won't or can't, marriage is a contract for those who would otherwise be legal strangers to one another, your siblings, parents, grandparents and even aunts and uncles already have a legal relationship with you. If you want any more rights than your existing legal relationship would entitle you, work it out on your own, it's not the state's concern. <quoted text>The word marriage has been used to recognize all sorts of relationships over its existence. The laws regulating it have on occasion been used to punish those some folk thought shouldn't be getting married. The bans on race mixing were the big one, but folks have also tried to deny marriage licenses to dead beat parents and serving felons, all to the same unsuccess. <quoted text>You do realize that in order for all couples to be equal in the eyes of the law, all couples, past, present and future, would have to be "name to be determined later" licensed, regardless of their sexual make-up? Are you sure that the "best" solution you can come up with is to legally nullify every last marriage that has ever been entered into in favor of a "whatchamacallit", because some folk have "issues"?
Changing the English language for 1.3% of the population seems a bit severe...... There is no "punishment" that I proposed. A legal remedy was offered and, I submit, you are being unreasonable and somewhat offensive in your militancy against a tradition of Judeo-Christian belief system. I do not oppose same sex couples going to the State and get recognized legally...... As far as mixed race marriages, it still requires a man and woman and race really does not matter today....... That past was just part of racism that most families have gotten over...... It is not uncommon today...... Nullification of current "marriage licenses" is a ridiculous and over reaction to what I proposed....... The State can pass legislation to change the language for their License to reflect a neutral term like Civil Union for legal purposes...... No one gets offended unless you wish to keep the screaming up.... I don't...... Again, the small minority can't claim possession of something that does not legally exist at this point...... Trying to be reasonable. How's the BBQ out there?
Batch 37 Pain Is Good

Keego Harbor, MI

#14 Aug 5, 2014
Fa-Foxy wrote:
Why are so many people, unable, or unwilling to SEPARATE religious marriages from civil marriages ? The two are NOT THE SAME !!!
What is wrong with these NUTS ??? They obviously have no concept nor understanding of logic. What's wrong with these people ?
I really sincerely wish you could articulate your argument like "passing by" does......
passing by

Salina, KS

#16 Aug 5, 2014
Batch 37 Pain Is Good wrote:
\Changing the English language for 1.3% of the population seems a bit severe...... There is no "punishment" that I proposed. A legal remedy was offered and, I submit, you are being unreasonable and somewhat offensive in your militancy against a tradition of Judeo-Christian belief system. I do not oppose same sex couples going to the State and get recognized legally...... As far as mixed race marriages, it still requires a man and woman and race really does not matter today....... That past was just part of racism that most families have gotten over...... It is not uncommon today...... Nullification of current "marriage licenses" is a ridiculous and over reaction to what I proposed....... The State can pass legislation to change the language for their License to reflect a neutral term like Civil Union for legal purposes...... No one gets offended unless you wish to keep the screaming up.... I don't...... Again, the small minority can't claim possession of something that does not legally exist at this point...... Trying to be reasonable. How's the BBQ out there?
Hon, since not all your fellow Judeo-Christians share in your definition of "marriage", any and all claims of proprietary usage on that basis simply don't stand. Sorry, but what your place of worship calls marriage and what the world around it calls marriage CAN be two different things.

Once again, in order to rename all marriage contracts, ALL marriage contracts would have to be so renamed, in order to not create an unequal system of recognition, those that have already been entered into would have to be nullified in order to be legally renamed to your to be determined, just to appease those few of you who have issues with sharing the word marriage in the future. Yet you are thinking that I am the one being unreasonable here.
passing by

Salina, KS

#17 Aug 5, 2014
Batch 37 Pain Is Good wrote:
I really sincerely wish you could articulate your argument like "passing by" does......
He's right though. Laws prohibiting the legal recognition of same sex marriages violates the 1st Amendment rights of those Judeo-Christian and other belief systems that don't share in your choice of beliefs that marriage is only an opposite sex proposition. If their blessing confers legal standing to an opposite sex couple, it is a violation of their right to believe as they do, to deny that same legal authority for their same sex blessings. Your church ISN'T the only one that gets a definition of marriage, don't you know. It violates the 14th Amendment equal protection rights of all Americans by limiting our choice of marital partners based on their sex. Our right to marry under the 10th Amendment means that that right can only be limited if it serves a compelling interest of the state for doing so. Your version of God not approving of same sex marriages, only of interest to yourselves, not the state. He's only recently started to win on his Article IV argument. Marriages, unlike the result of divorce proceedings, have just in the past couple three months been constitutionally required to be recognized from state to state. The denial of recognition of marriages that were legally performed in another state screams violation of the full faith and credit clause, but there is an out clause that Congress hid behind in passing DOMA Section 2 (recently declared unconstitutional in one of the Ohio cases and in Oklahoma).
Batch 37 Pain Is Good

Keego Harbor, MI

#18 Aug 5, 2014
passing by wrote:
<quoted text>Hon, since not all your fellow Judeo-Christians share in your definition of "marriage", any and all claims of proprietary usage on that basis simply don't stand. Sorry, but what your place of worship calls marriage and what the world around it calls marriage CAN be two different things.
Once again, in order to rename all marriage contracts, ALL marriage contracts would have to be so renamed, in order to not create an unequal system of recognition, those that have already been entered into would have to be nullified in order to be legally renamed to your to be determined, just to appease those few of you who have issues with sharing the word marriage in the future. Yet you are thinking that I am the one being unreasonable here.
I would have to say as a fish eating idol worshiper (I can tell you exactly if the clue is missed) who was raised exposed to all kinds of beliefs from Jewish to Protestant, evangelical, etc.(all friends today, that the definition here in the United States has been consistent. Probably 98% of the time....... So pardon my disagreement. The rest of the world does not live here and I don't see people running to get out and join your utopian view of the rest of the world..... Our Country is unique and desirable, as imperfect as we are, and people are dying (literally on our Southern border) to get in. There is no need for nullifying previous State contracts as they would be grandfathered after the sunset. From that point forward, all State union contracts would apply to all couples who wish legal rights for their spouse...... Now the arguments to be able to visit in hospital, prison, banking, insurance, et al can be taken off the table........ At the same time you may want to consider what happens when the relationship falls apart....... Since the bond is contractual with the State, so is a divorce. Half of everything sweetheart. That is the reality today. I have not had to go through that but plenty of people I know have....... Not very pleasant..

I must take back my accusation of your militancy as you have demonstrated a level of reasoned discussion...... Other advocates for "Gay Marriage" in previous Forum discussions come across like they want to punish someone...... Hair on fire types....... Oh I am serious about how the BBQ is out there. What suburb is your town with?
Batch 37 Pain Is Good

Keego Harbor, MI

#19 Aug 5, 2014
passing by wrote:
<quoted text>He's right though. Laws prohibiting the legal recognition of same sex marriages violates the 1st Amendment rights of those Judeo-Christian and other belief systems that don't share in your choice of beliefs that marriage is only an opposite sex proposition. If their blessing confers legal standing to an opposite sex couple, it is a violation of their right to believe as they do, to deny that same legal authority for their same sex blessings. Your church ISN'T the only one that gets a definition of marriage, don't you know. It violates the 14th Amendment equal protection rights of all Americans by limiting our choice of marital partners based on their sex. Our right to marry under the 10th Amendment means that that right can only be limited if it serves a compelling interest of the state for doing so. Your version of God not approving of same sex marriages, only of interest to yourselves, not the state. He's only recently started to win on his Article IV argument. Marriages, unlike the result of divorce proceedings, have just in the past couple three months been constitutionally required to be recognized from state to state. The denial of recognition of marriages that were legally performed in another state screams violation of the full faith and credit clause, but there is an out clause that Congress hid behind in passing DOMA Section 2 (recently declared unconstitutional in one of the Ohio cases and in Oklahoma).
Is it a State responsibility to call such a union a marriage..... The 14 amendment's equal protection clause applies to Federal impositions. Can't speak to the 10th as the States would determine what is good for that State. My God's version of marriage is mine to be sure....... Now we can talk about the State borrowing the term marriage in their licensing.......... It should be replaced and leave the term to private belief's of people's faith and sacrament. Separation of Church and State should please agnostics and atheists as well. A sectarian solution that most "Progressives" would cheer...... All those law suits about displays of the Star of David and Crucifix would save the State a lot of money when they go after the State over a Marriage License.....
passing by

Salina, KS

#20 Aug 5, 2014
Grandfathering existing marriages, including those of existing same sex marriages, as marriages, to the exclusion of all future relationships to be named later, creates a two tiered system of recognition. Separate recognition is inherently a not equal recognition. Now go tell your mom and dad they are no longer and technically never were legally married, they have to be whatevered, because you don't like the notion of same sex marriages being called marriages.

Places of worship get the right to determine who is and is not married according to the rule of their beliefs, they don't get the right to determine who is and is not married according to the rule of civil law. The definition of marriage according to your beliefs can be different from the definition under civil law, in fact it always has been.

Batch 37 Pain Is Good

Keego Harbor, MI

#21 Aug 5, 2014
passing by wrote:
Grandfathering existing marriages, including those of existing same sex marriages, as marriages, to the exclusion of all future relationships to be named later, creates a two tiered system of recognition. Separate recognition is inherently a not equal recognition. Now go tell your mom and dad they are no longer and technically never were legally married, they have to be whatevered, because you don't like the notion of same sex marriages being called marriages.
Places of worship get the right to determine who is and is not married according to the rule of their beliefs, they don't get the right to determine who is and is not married according to the rule of civil law. The definition of marriage according to your beliefs can be different from the definition under civil law, in fact it always has been.
I wpuldn't get hung up over the word. It is the legal device that has always been the allows access by the spouse to the other. There is no exclusion in State. Moving to another State and having the new State recognize the license is where you are going to have a harder time. If I register my weapon systems in one state and move to NYC it would be confiscated because my license does not exist there. My driver license does. Now an argument might be made for equal rights since the second amendment exists but what recourse do I have. Equal Protection does not occur. Commerce clause does not apply either. It is an up hill endeavor....
Pat Robertson s Fatwass

Philadelphia, PA

#22 Aug 5, 2014
Batch 37 Pain Is Good wrote:
He is right about the definition of "marriage". Words mean things. That being said, a State contract to facilitate legal access to make decisions as a couple is up to the individual State. The US Constitution does not make such contracts part of the Federal govt........
Contrary to the hilarious "Dean" of the "University," marriage has already been redefined in the West to include same sex marriage. He's speaking as though it's something that hasn't happened. It has happened throughout the Western democracies except in the backwards, red, buybull states of the US.

Christardates should also recognize that through most of Western civilization, including in the buybull, "marriage" meant one man and many women, or one man and a child bride, or one man and a woman who legally was property, chattel.

Also, the right wing bigots made marriage in this context a federal issue when they passed DOMA.

Prior to that there had been federal intervention in state administration of marriage on many occasions, including when some reprobate, Southern states insisted on barring interracial marriage. That was an appropriate role for the federal govenrment/judiciary.

You don't know anything. You are too ignorant and deluded and theocratic to get one single fact correct. Disgusting.
passing by

Salina, KS

#23 Aug 5, 2014
Batch 37 Pain Is Good wrote:
Is it a State responsibility to call such a union a marriage.....
Yes, the state has the authority to regulate the issuance of marriage licenses, however, their regulation can't violate the rights of its citizens. We the people do have rights, you know. Our right to marry outweighs their right to regulate our marriage.
Batch 37 Pain Is Good wrote:
The 14 amendment's equal protection clause applies to Federal impositions.
You do know that the protection of individual rights in the 14th Amendment was extended to actions taken by the states decades ago, don't you?
Batch 37 Pain Is Good wrote:
Can't speak to the 10th as the States would determine what is good for that State.
If what is determined to be "good" for the state is to violate the rights of its citizens, what's "good" for the state isn't going to be permitted to stand.
Batch 37 Pain Is Good wrote:
My God's version of marriage is mine to be sure....... Now we can talk about the State borrowing the term marriage in their licensing.......... It should be replaced and leave the term to private belief's of people's faith and sacrament. Separation of Church and State should please agnostics and atheists as well. A sectarian solution that most "Progressives" would cheer...... All those law suits about displays of the Star of David and Crucifix would save the State a lot of money when they go after the State over a Marriage License.....
Sorry, but the state doesn't have to give up use of the legal term marriage to describe such relationships, the religious have never held sole proprietary right to the term.
Faith Hits the Fan Splat

Alpharetta, GA

#24 Aug 5, 2014
Marriage equality will mean the end of Jerry Falwell's Liberty University Law School
.
Their cover is blown
passing by

Salina, KS

#25 Aug 5, 2014
Batch 37 Pain Is Good wrote:
I wpuldn't get hung up over the word. It is the legal device that has always been the allows access by the spouse to the other. There is no exclusion in State. Moving to another State and having the new State recognize the license is where you are going to have a harder time. If I register my weapon systems in one state and move to NYC it would be confiscated because my license does not exist there. My driver license does. Now an argument might be made for equal rights since the second amendment exists but what recourse do I have. Equal Protection does not occur. Commerce clause does not apply either. It is an up hill endeavor....
Marriage licenses are a legal contract, the registration of firearms isn't. Various permits and licenses governing activities by a state's residents aren't constitutionally required be recognized under the laws of any other states, they only do so, when they do, out of the principle of comity. Legal contracts and court proceedings are constitutionally required to be recognized in all states, even if the laws of the other states does not agree. Divorce decrees in any state are constitutionally required to be recognized and enforced in every other state, this has been a matter of settled law for more than a century. When it comes to the recognition of marriages from state to state, despite it being a legal contract, the enforcement of it was left to comity. There haven't been any federal cases on the question. When the issue comes up in state courts, most states rely on what is known as the Mays Standard, which is, if a marriage was legal at its time and place of celebration, it remains legal, regardless of the laws against it if they choose to move. the Mays case is the stuff of soap operas. A younger uncle marries a considerably older niece under a bizarre exemption to incestuous marriage prohibitions once written in Rhode Island law, it allowed those of the Jewish faith to marry those not specifically prohibited to them under Mosaic law. Uncle niece marriages, not on the list, Aunts can't marry nephews, but....They got themselves a then legal Rhode Island marriage. The exemption was voted out shortly after what happened next. The fun started when shortly after moving back to New York, where such marriages were specifically prohibited, the old lady passed and her uncle asserted his rights as her husband. Her kids from a previous marriage, quite understandably. sued. According to New York law, there never was a marriage. They lost, the odd little Rhode Island law held precedence, the marriage was legal where and when it was entered into, that can't be voided simply because another state does not approve.

It's good that you got to know about all this, it's about to become the federal standard as well, all states are going to be constitutionally required to recognize the legal validity of any and all marriages performed in other states, if they were legal when entered into. Even those between same sex couples.
passing by

Salina, KS

#26 Aug 5, 2014
Faith Hits the Fan Splat wrote:
Marriage equality will mean the end of Jerry Falwell's Liberty University Law School
.
Their cover is blown
They never really had a cover other than pretending to be Christian. Liberty's mission to make the lives of gay folk miserable under the color of the law has been overt since they started and won't end just because they've lost the marriage fight. Don't forget, they're to blame for the Miller-Jenkins case in Virginia and similar efforts to deny parental rights to gay folk across the country and they have been helping defend those religious bigotry protection acts that popped up. They haven't been the one-trick pony most of these groups became, they diversified their hate early and often.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 16
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Grand Rapids Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Local News Women (Apr '09) 22 hr RedWings19 2,357
News College football roundup: Ohio State starts the... (Sep '13) Mon stewart scott 1,768
its high time . . . Mar 29 bobolinq 1
News TRY IT BEFORE YOU BUY IT: Roof Melt (Jan '08) Mar 28 gaga2 72
News This Woman Didn't Get Any Bacon In Her Burger S... Mar 28 Sneaky Pete 6
News When to consider hip replacement surgery Mar 27 Jane Fairfax 1
Mystery shopping in Grand Rapids? Mar 25 Mrs C 2
Grand Rapids Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Grand Rapids People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]