Amendment 1 in North Carolina
Options
Replies
-
You're Christian, you oppose gay marriage and homosexuality in general. Got it. So what? Your religion has no influence on government policy and it DEFINITELY has no bearing on how I choose to live my life.
I think the issue there is that marriage is (or was) a religious practice. And I think there is a valid argument to be made that the government should not get involved at all in marriage. But there's no question that if the government *does* get involved (which it has), it must be equal for everyone, not just heterosexuals.0 -
Following the word of Christ is what we are suppose to do, and He never said anything about homosexuals, not a single recorded word.
Well, that's not entirely true. First, the argument could be made that there isn't actually a single recorded word of ANYTHING that Jesus of Nazareth said. In fact, an argument could be made that it's impossible to prove he even existed. But that's a different debate.
Assuming you believe Jesus was a real person and assuming you believe the quotes in the gospel are actual quotes made by Jesus (which is rather unlikely), you do have him saying the following:
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." -- Matthew 5:17
Among the various laws (and oh boy are there are a lot), there is a law that expressly forbids homosexual conduct (Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13 and arguabl7 Deut 23:17). Of course, what makes the whole thing ridiculous is that there are many, many laws in the OT that Christians (or even most Jews) completely ignore. So a Christian using Leviticus as justification for being anti-homosexuality would be hard to swallow (so to speak).
Of course, Paul (who really is responsible for what we see as Christianity today, far far more than Jesus himself) did come straight out and say homosexuality was bad (1 Cor 6:9). So perhaps a Christian could cling to that as their argument for being anti-homosexuality. Regardless, I think you are implying that Jesus of Nazareth didn't have a problem with homosexuality which I think is really stretching it.0 -
Marriage isn't and wasn't primarily a religious practice. It was to expand wealth, create families, create treaties, claim property (the woman), and trade goods and services. Marriage is far more a legal term than a religious term. You can get married in a church or temple or courthouse but you cannot get married without a marriage license. Marriage for love is actually a very recent thing in the history of marriage.You're Christian, you oppose gay marriage and homosexuality in general. Got it. So what? Your religion has no influence on government policy and it DEFINITELY has no bearing on how I choose to live my life.
I think the issue there is that marriage is (or was) a religious practice. And I think there is a valid argument to be made that the government should not get involved at all in marriage. But there's no question that if the government *does* get involved (which it has), it must be equal for everyone, not just heterosexuals.
IMO, marriage should be a term applied to all and if the religious zealots want to claim a special term for a marriage then they can call theirs a religious union.0 -
I'll take that as a compliment.
While I agree, people should try to be polite (I refrain from mocking the stupidity of some of the comments on here) - if I had, it would have made no difference - as my arguments are based in logic & reason - not rhetoric.
You'd make a terrible politician0 -
I'm sure it is one on some level. lol
I'll take that as a compliment.
While I agree, people should try to be polite (I refrain from mocking the stupidity of some of the comments on here) - if I had, it would have made no difference - as my arguments are based in logic & reason - not rhetoric.
You'd make a terrible politician0 -
Marriage isn't and wasn't primarily a religious practice.You're Christian, you oppose gay marriage and homosexuality in general. Got it. So what? Your religion has no influence on government policy and it DEFINITELY has no bearing on how I choose to live my life.
I think the issue there is that marriage is (or was) a religious practice. And I think there is a valid argument to be made that the government should not get involved at all in marriage. But there's no question that if the government *does* get involved (which it has), it must be equal for everyone, not just heterosexuals.
Interesting. Where do most weddings take place?0 -
Marriage isn't and wasn't primarily a religious practice.You're Christian, you oppose gay marriage and homosexuality in general. Got it. So what? Your religion has no influence on government policy and it DEFINITELY has no bearing on how I choose to live my life.
I think the issue there is that marriage is (or was) a religious practice. And I think there is a valid argument to be made that the government should not get involved at all in marriage. But there's no question that if the government *does* get involved (which it has), it must be equal for everyone, not just heterosexuals.
Interesting. Where do most weddings take place?
while weddings might commonly take place in a church... that does not make the church their origin.., especially considering marriage has been around longer than christianity... and as far as the government is concerned... that little ceremony means nothing unless there is paper involved.. so I'd argue that location does not matter at all.0 -
Marriage isn't and wasn't primarily a religious practice.You're Christian, you oppose gay marriage and homosexuality in general. Got it. So what? Your religion has no influence on government policy and it DEFINITELY has no bearing on how I choose to live my life.
I think the issue there is that marriage is (or was) a religious practice. And I think there is a valid argument to be made that the government should not get involved at all in marriage. But there's no question that if the government *does* get involved (which it has), it must be equal for everyone, not just heterosexuals.
Interesting. Where do most weddings take place?
while weddings might commonly take place in a church... that does not make the church their origin.., especially considering marriage has been around longer than christianity... and as far as the government is concerned... that little ceremony means nothing unless there is paper involved.. so I'd argue that location does not matter at all.
But we're not talking about the rest of the world or what happened 2000 years ago. We're talking about the United States in the last few hundred years. In that case, a wedding is most often a religious ceremony performed at a church.
Look, I was married in a courthouse in front of a judge. But to say that in the United States, where three out of four people identify themselves as Christian, marriage isn't considered a religious institution... well... come on.0 -
Marriage isn't and wasn't primarily a religious practice.You're Christian, you oppose gay marriage and homosexuality in general. Got it. So what? Your religion has no influence on government policy and it DEFINITELY has no bearing on how I choose to live my life.
I think the issue there is that marriage is (or was) a religious practice. And I think there is a valid argument to be made that the government should not get involved at all in marriage. But there's no question that if the government *does* get involved (which it has), it must be equal for everyone, not just heterosexuals.
Interesting. Where do most weddings take place?
Context. It's key.0 -
Marriage isn't and wasn't primarily a religious practice.You're Christian, you oppose gay marriage and homosexuality in general. Got it. So what? Your religion has no influence on government policy and it DEFINITELY has no bearing on how I choose to live my life.
I think the issue there is that marriage is (or was) a religious practice. And I think there is a valid argument to be made that the government should not get involved at all in marriage. But there's no question that if the government *does* get involved (which it has), it must be equal for everyone, not just heterosexuals.
Interesting. Where do most weddings take place?
while weddings might commonly take place in a church... that does not make the church their origin.., especially considering marriage has been around longer than christianity... and as far as the government is concerned... that little ceremony means nothing unless there is paper involved.. so I'd argue that location does not matter at all.
But we're not talking about the rest of the world or what happened 2000 years ago. We're talking about the United States in the last few hundred years. In that case, a wedding is most often a religious ceremony performed at a church.
Look, I was married in a courthouse in front of a judge. But to say that in the United States, where three out of four people identify themselves as Christian, marriage isn't considered a religious institution... well... come on.
simply because a majority of people in this country might subscribe to a particular religion does not mean those in the minority have to fall in line under those rules. There's a first amendment for a reason. I would also argue that in recent decades there has been a trend of less traditional wedding ceremonies and locations.0 -
Marriage isn't and wasn't primarily a religious practice.You're Christian, you oppose gay marriage and homosexuality in general. Got it. So what? Your religion has no influence on government policy and it DEFINITELY has no bearing on how I choose to live my life.
I think the issue there is that marriage is (or was) a religious practice. And I think there is a valid argument to be made that the government should not get involved at all in marriage. But there's no question that if the government *does* get involved (which it has), it must be equal for everyone, not just heterosexuals.
Interesting. Where do most weddings take place?
while weddings might commonly take place in a church... that does not make the church their origin.., especially considering marriage has been around longer than christianity... and as far as the government is concerned... that little ceremony means nothing unless there is paper involved.. so I'd argue that location does not matter at all.
But we're not talking about the rest of the world or what happened 2000 years ago. We're talking about the United States in the last few hundred years. In that case, a wedding is most often a religious ceremony performed at a church.
Look, I was married in a courthouse in front of a judge. But to say that in the United States, where three out of four people identify themselves as Christian, marriage isn't considered a religious institution... well... come on.
In that case then the government should not recognize marrige at all,no tax breaks nothing. Funny i never see people supporting that0 -
75% of people in the US identify themselves as Christian. That doesn't mean 75% of the people in the US consider the church to own the word marriage or that it should be able to define it. I call myself a Christian. I'm more agnostic but with Christian leanings. I was married in a Catholic church too. Mostly to appease my parents and grandparents and because in the small town I was from there really was no other place to go.
Marriage isn't and wasn't primarily a religious practice.You're Christian, you oppose gay marriage and homosexuality in general. Got it. So what? Your religion has no influence on government policy and it DEFINITELY has no bearing on how I choose to live my life.
I think the issue there is that marriage is (or was) a religious practice. And I think there is a valid argument to be made that the government should not get involved at all in marriage. But there's no question that if the government *does* get involved (which it has), it must be equal for everyone, not just heterosexuals.
Interesting. Where do most weddings take place?
while weddings might commonly take place in a church... that does not make the church their origin.., especially considering marriage has been around longer than christianity... and as far as the government is concerned... that little ceremony means nothing unless there is paper involved.. so I'd argue that location does not matter at all.
But we're not talking about the rest of the world or what happened 2000 years ago. We're talking about the United States in the last few hundred years. In that case, a wedding is most often a religious ceremony performed at a church.
Look, I was married in a courthouse in front of a judge. But to say that in the United States, where three out of four people identify themselves as Christian, marriage isn't considered a religious institution... well... come on.
If marriage were a religious practice then only Christians would be able to get married and you wouldn't need a government issued marriage license. The fact that some, even most, people group it into a religious venue doesn't mean anything. Most families have a pet but if someone tried to say that you can't really be a family if you don't have a pet or you can't have a pet if you don't live with your family that would just be stupid.0 -
There are no tax breaks for being married. In most cases it's actually better off from a tax standpoint to remain single. Until very recently there was actually a marriage penalty whereby the standard deduction for 2 single people was higher than the standard deduction for a married couple.
In that case then the government should not recognize marrige at all,no tax breaks nothing. Funny i never see people supporting that0 -
There are no tax breaks for being married. In most cases it's actually better off from a tax standpoint to remain single. Until very recently there was actually a marriage penalty whereby the standard deduction for 2 single people was higher than the standard deduction for a married couple.
In that case then the government should not recognize marrige at all,no tax breaks nothing. Funny i never see people supporting that
I was assuming there was since we stopped oweing as much money when me an the husband filed married instead of seperate0 -
There are no tax breaks for being married. In most cases it's actually better off from a tax standpoint to remain single. Until very recently there was actually a marriage penalty whereby the standard deduction for 2 single people was higher than the standard deduction for a married couple.
In that case then the government should not recognize marrige at all,no tax breaks nothing. Funny i never see people supporting that
Depending on your specific situation filing MFS can have worse tax implications than filing MFJ. But MFJ doesn't have any benefits over filing single or head of household.
I was assuming there was since we stopped oweing as much money when me an the husband filed married instead of seperate0 -
Marriage isn't and wasn't primarily a religious practice.You're Christian, you oppose gay marriage and homosexuality in general. Got it. So what? Your religion has no influence on government policy and it DEFINITELY has no bearing on how I choose to live my life.
I think the issue there is that marriage is (or was) a religious practice. And I think there is a valid argument to be made that the government should not get involved at all in marriage. But there's no question that if the government *does* get involved (which it has), it must be equal for everyone, not just heterosexuals.
Interesting. Where do most weddings take place?
while weddings might commonly take place in a church... that does not make the church their origin.., especially considering marriage has been around longer than christianity... and as far as the government is concerned... that little ceremony means nothing unless there is paper involved.. so I'd argue that location does not matter at all.
But we're not talking about the rest of the world or what happened 2000 years ago. We're talking about the United States in the last few hundred years. In that case, a wedding is most often a religious ceremony performed at a church.
Look, I was married in a courthouse in front of a judge. But to say that in the United States, where three out of four people identify themselves as Christian, marriage isn't considered a religious institution... well... come on.
In that case then the government should not recognize marrige at all,no tax breaks nothing. Funny i never see people supporting that
Then you didn't bother to read all of the posts in this thread. Because, in fact, that was my original argument - the government has no business getting involved in marriage, period.0 -
75% of people in the US identify themselves as Christian. That doesn't mean 75% of the people in the US consider the church to own the word marriage or that it should be able to define it. I call myself a Christian. I'm more agnostic but with Christian leanings. I was married in a Catholic church too. Mostly to appease my parents and grandparents and because in the small town I was from there really was no other place to go.
Marriage isn't and wasn't primarily a religious practice.You're Christian, you oppose gay marriage and homosexuality in general. Got it. So what? Your religion has no influence on government policy and it DEFINITELY has no bearing on how I choose to live my life.
I think the issue there is that marriage is (or was) a religious practice. And I think there is a valid argument to be made that the government should not get involved at all in marriage. But there's no question that if the government *does* get involved (which it has), it must be equal for everyone, not just heterosexuals.
Interesting. Where do most weddings take place?
while weddings might commonly take place in a church... that does not make the church their origin.., especially considering marriage has been around longer than christianity... and as far as the government is concerned... that little ceremony means nothing unless there is paper involved.. so I'd argue that location does not matter at all.
But we're not talking about the rest of the world or what happened 2000 years ago. We're talking about the United States in the last few hundred years. In that case, a wedding is most often a religious ceremony performed at a church.
Look, I was married in a courthouse in front of a judge. But to say that in the United States, where three out of four people identify themselves as Christian, marriage isn't considered a religious institution... well... come on.
If marriage were a religious practice then only Christians would be able to get married and you wouldn't need a government issued marriage license. The fact that some, even most, people group it into a religious venue doesn't mean anything. Most families have a pet but if someone tried to say that you can't really be a family if you don't have a pet or you can't have a pet if you don't live with your family that would just be stupid.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Again, I'm a non-Christian who got married in a courthouse and is pro gay marriage. But to say that marriage in the United States has been a mostly religious practice to me is just stating the obvious. And acknowledging it doesn't weaken the pro gay marriage position at all.
Pointing out exceptions doesn't change the rule.0 -
Some say government has no business getting involved in marriage, others say marriage is not a religious thing. So what do we do? The Church is concerned about civil definitions of marriage inasmuch as it is concerned about the good of human communities. Both the Church and the state, separately, are concerned with the wellbeing of society, and this requires that special attention be given to the young . It has traditionally been thought that what is best for society (by the Church and the state) is a family of natural parents raising their children. It has been thought that the natural parents of a child are those who should care the most for the child and bear the natural responsibility for the child, and therefore the state has given recognition and advantages to parents of children. Since male/female relationships are the context in which children are conceived, the state has had a vested interest in providing a framework that advantages the survival and flourishing of those relationships. My hope is that the state will recognize that "traditional" family units are very few and far between anymore (count the number of divorces). My hope is that other forms of family units will receive the same recognition and advantages. However, I still feel it is important for both the Church and state to weigh in on what is the "wellbeing of society". We cannot just allow laws to be created or changed based on how people feel (a man might "feel" being married to 5 women is good and raising a farm full of children with different wives is good).Then you didn't bother to read all of the posts in this thread. Because, in fact, that was my original argument - the government has no business getting involved in marriage, period.
I am not saying I don't support nor appreciate the separation of church and state. I believe both hold a responsibility for the wellbeing of society. I'm not suggesting that religious views be forced upon non-religious people, either. I'm saying that I'm happy for any group to be concerned about the "good" of society. It's just very hard to get everyone to agree on what "good" means.0 -
Since male/female relationships are the context in which children are conceived, the state has had a vested interest in providing a framework that advantages the survival and flourishing of those relationships.
And I guess there is where the Libertarian in me says, "so what?" This my personal belief - the state should not be in the business of trying to affect change in society. The role of the government should be to provide for the common defense and protect those who do not have the means to protect themselves (e.g. prevent factories from dumping toxic chemicals into the water supply). I believe the vast majority of what the federal government does is unconstitutional.
I believe a government which governs least, governs best. But that's just my opinion.0 -
I'm going to try to respond to a number of things without quoting. Here's hoping I hit them all.
Marriage does walk a funny line between state and religion. But here's the thing. It's mostly state, especially for the purposes of this debate. Yes most people get married in a church. But ALL people need a marriage license, issued by the state. You can get married in a church by a preacher, or you can get married in a field by a friend who filled out a form on the internet. But for you to be considered legally married you must have a marriage license.
And the benefits extended to those who are married are mostly a regulatory, "state" issue. Homosexuals are fighting for the right to see their loved ones in a hospital. To be able to file taxes jointly. To have fair access to each others health benefits, etc. That's what they want.
They're not demanding the church recognize their marriages, just the state. They aren't demanding church weddings presided by a priest or rabbi. YES some of that is happening within respective faiths, but that's not what any of this legislation is about. It is simply an issue of equality.
It's why I support the state getting out of the marriage business. It isn't something the government needs to encourage with tax breaks or anything. People don't get married for that reason.0 -
Since male/female relationships are the context in which children are conceived, the state has had a vested interest in providing a framework that advantages the survival and flourishing of those relationships.
The statement you quoted was in the context of me referring to what used to be thought.And I guess there is where the Libertarian in me says, "so what?" This my personal belief - the state should not be in the business of trying to affect change in society. The role of the government should be to provide for the common defense and protect those who do not have the means to protect themselves (e.g. prevent factories from dumping toxic chemicals into the water supply). I believe the vast majority of what the federal government does is unconstitutional.
I believe a government which governs least, governs best. But that's just my opinion.0 -
You and I agree. We're just coming from different starting points. :flowerforyou:Marriage does walk a funny line between state and religion. But here's the thing. It's mostly state, especially for the purposes of this debate. Yes most people get married in a church. But ALL people need a marriage license, issued by the state. You can get married in a church by a preacher, or you can get married in a field by a friend who filled out a form on the internet. But for you to be considered legally married you must have a marriage license.
And the benefits extended to those who are married are mostly a regulatory, "state" issue. Homosexuals are fighting for the right to see their loved ones in a hospital. To be able to file taxes jointly. To have fair access to each others health benefits, etc. That's what they want.
They're not demanding the church recognize their marriages, just the state. They aren't demanding church weddings presided by a priest or rabbi. YES some of that is happening within respective faiths, but that's not what any of this legislation is about. It is simply an issue of equality.
It's why I support the state getting out of the marriage business. It isn't something the government needs to encourage with tax breaks or anything. People don't get married for that reason.0 -
[...]And the benefits extended to those who are married are mostly a regulatory, "state" issue. Homosexuals are fighting for the right to see their loved ones in a hospital. To be able to file taxes jointly. To have fair access to each others health benefits, etc. That's what they want.
They're not demanding the church recognize their marriages, just the state. They aren't demanding church weddings presided by a priest or rabbi. YES some of that is happening within respective faiths, but that's not what any of this legislation is about. It is simply an issue of equality.
It's why I support the state getting out of the marriage business. It isn't something the government needs to encourage with tax breaks or anything. People don't get married for that reason.
I agree for the most part. The whole reason of the marriage license is to grant benefits and provide protection for both parties. Who else would issue this, though, (and be a third-party arbiter) besides state or federal government? Joe Blow's discount marriage license company?
0 -
I agree for the most part. The whole reason of the marriage license is to grant benefits and provide protection for both parties. Who else would issue this, though, (and be a third-party arbiter) besides state or federal government? Joe Blow's discount marriage license company?
Walmart?0 -
I agree for the most part. The whole reason of the marriage license is to grant benefits and provide protection for both parties. Who else would issue this, though, (and be a third-party arbiter) besides state or federal government? Joe Blow's discount marriage license company?
Walmart?
Lot easier to get to a Walmart as opposed to a state building. I know, I work in one. And some Walmarts are open 24/7, and free parking.
Shoot the only negative to this plan is that we'd totally be living in Idiocracy. But hell that's gonna happen anyway...0 -
I agree for the most part. The whole reason of the marriage license is to grant benefits and provide protection for both parties. Who else would issue this, though, (and be a third-party arbiter) besides state or federal government? Joe Blow's discount marriage license company?Walmart?
Perhaps a drive-thru at Wal-Mart? Just scan both drivers' licenses and it prints out?Lot easier to get to a Walmart as opposed to a state building. I know, I work in one. And some Walmarts are open 24/7, and free parking.0 -
Many have argued the government shouldn't be involved in marraige.
If this became the case, then my marriage, and any other marriage performed by a government official, would be null and void. I have a marriage license and a marriage certificate. I was married in a courthouse by a judge. The word "God" did not enter into my marriage vows at all. Note the word marriage. Not a civil union. Not a domestic partnership. Marriage. Why does the location of the ceremony make a difference as to what it is called? Before my husband and I got married we were considered to be in a domestic partnership. We lived together. We had a joint bank account. He was on my insurnace through work. We bought a house and 2 cars together. We were jointly responsible for one another's welfare. Finally, we referred to one another as husband and wife. You know what changed between then and now? We signed a peice of paper that said "marriage certificate," we now file taxes jointly, and my last name got 4 letters added to it. It doesn't matter what it's called be it marriage, civil union, whatever. Two people in love who are jointly responsible for one another's welfare are all the same. If the government wasn't involved in marriages then everyone would have to go to a church. But not everyone attends church or practices a religion so then what do they do?
All that being said, I don't believe that anyone has the right to tell anyone else who they can and cannot be with. I do not agree with laws that state you are not allowed to marry the person who are in love with. I also do not agree with religious beliefs being forced upon those that do not share those beliefs.0 -
[...]And the benefits extended to those who are married are mostly a regulatory, "state" issue. Homosexuals are fighting for the right to see their loved ones in a hospital. To be able to file taxes jointly. To have fair access to each others health benefits, etc. That's what they want.
They're not demanding the church recognize their marriages, just the state. They aren't demanding church weddings presided by a priest or rabbi. YES some of that is happening within respective faiths, but that's not what any of this legislation is about. It is simply an issue of equality.
It's why I support the state getting out of the marriage business. It isn't something the government needs to encourage with tax breaks or anything. People don't get married for that reason.
I agree for the most part. The whole reason of the marriage license is to grant benefits and provide protection for both parties. Who else would issue this, though, (and be a third-party arbiter) besides state or federal government? Joe Blow's discount marriage license company?
what if we did away with marriage licenses altogether and make it a contract? You go to a lawyer with your prospective spouse, the two of you negotiate the terms of the contract, and both of you sign it. Ta-DAAAAAA you're legally married. Now if you want a wedding, go have one. If you don't, no need for a trip to the courthouse or anything else.
If either of you violate the terms of the contract you signed, then you may file a lawsuit for divorce. Just like any other contract, you must be a consenting adult to enter into it.
Thoughts? Protests?
I think this solves the problem elegantly. Gets the government out of it, and still provides for a way to track who has entered into a legal marriage contract and who hasn't. Just like if you create a corporation, you go to a lawyer and they register the proper paperwork with your state, the lawyer who draws up your marriage contract would file it with the state.0 -
Many have argued the government shouldn't be involved in marraige.
If this became the case, then my marriage, and any other marriage performed by a government official, would be null and void. I have a marriage license and a marriage certificate. I was married in a courthouse by a judge.
You needn't worry. That would NEVER happen. No one is looking to take away anyone's marriage. Laws never apply retroactively anyway.0 -
[...]And the benefits extended to those who are married are mostly a regulatory, "state" issue. Homosexuals are fighting for the right to see their loved ones in a hospital. To be able to file taxes jointly. To have fair access to each others health benefits, etc. That's what they want.
They're not demanding the church recognize their marriages, just the state. They aren't demanding church weddings presided by a priest or rabbi. YES some of that is happening within respective faiths, but that's not what any of this legislation is about. It is simply an issue of equality.
It's why I support the state getting out of the marriage business. It isn't something the government needs to encourage with tax breaks or anything. People don't get married for that reason.
I agree for the most part. The whole reason of the marriage license is to grant benefits and provide protection for both parties. Who else would issue this, though, (and be a third-party arbiter) besides state or federal government? Joe Blow's discount marriage license company?
what if we did away with marriage licenses altogether and make it a contract? You go to a lawyer with your prospective spouse, the two of you negotiate the terms of the contract, and both of you sign it. Ta-DAAAAAA you're legally married. Now if you want a wedding, go have one. If you don't, no need for a trip to the courthouse or anything else.
If either of you violate the terms of the contract you signed, then you may file a lawsuit for divorce. Just like any other contract, you must be a consenting adult to enter into it.
Thoughts? Protests?
I think this solves the problem elegantly. Gets the government out of it, and still provides for a way to track who has entered into a legal marriage contract and who hasn't. Just like if you create a corporation, you go to a lawyer and they register the proper paperwork with your state, the lawyer who draws up your marriage contract would file it with the state.
That only works if you tell the clergy of every religion in America that they have no authority to marry anyone, that only legal marriage contracts are recognized by the government. That will not go over well.0
This discussion has been closed.