The Truth about Biblical Marriage

Posted on Updated on

by Kelly M. Wilson

Last week LGBT people and their allies celebrated the Supreme Court’s decision to legalize same-sex marriage throughout the nation, while opponents of same-sex marriage lamented this as one more step that America has taken away from biblical family values. I started seeing these images pop up on Facebook and Twitter.

biblicalman and woman

For opponents of same-sex marriage, the biblical view of marriage is one man and one woman as depicted in Genesis 1 and 2. But ending the discussion at Genesis 2 ignores the rest of what the Bible has to say about marriage. It is true that Genesis 1 depicts God creating male and female and commands them to be fruitful and multiply. It is also true that Genesis 2 talks about a man leaving his home and clinging to his wife. Ancient creation epics typically begin with a male and female because when you are beginning to populate the world, even the ancients understood that it could not have been Adam and Steve. Although the text says that it began male and female, opponents of same-sex marriage believe that this is binding for all time and can never be redefined to include others even though the biblical text itself neither states nor follows that view. What opponents of same-sex marriage fail to recognize is that there is not one view of marriage in the Bible; there are multiple views. Therefore the images above are either woefully ignorant or willfully misleading. If we want to understand what the Bible says about marriage we need to not only look at the entire Bible, we also need to look at the language and culture in which the Bible was written.


First, there is no Hebrew word for marriage in the Old Testament. If your English translation reads “a man married a woman,” the Hebrew reads laqach “to take or to have” a woman (Pressler, 202).  Second, in the ancient world this taking or having was a social/economic contract not a moral or religious one. This marriage involved things that we no longer practice. When a man wanted “to take or have” a wife, he needed to pay the father (or closest male relative) a mohar “bride price.” A bride price was money, goods, or services in exchange for the father’s daughter. For example, Jacob worked 7 years for his uncle in order to marry his cousin, Leah and another 7 years to marry his other cousin, Rachel (Genesis 29). And, yes, biblical marriage allows marriage to cousins. Abraham married his half-sister, but Leviticus later forbids it (18:11). This reveals that the Bible itself reflects a change in marriage laws, which is the very thing opponents of same-sex marriage decry. Before David was king he couldn’t afford a bride price to marry King Saul’s daughter, so Saul said that his bride price could be 100 Philistine foreskins (1 Samuel 18:25). It might not be beautiful, but it’s biblical. After the bride price was paid, the woman goes from being a daughter to now being a wife. Third, a man could have more than one wife. In the ancient world, when infant mortality was high and women could not own land, a family needed to ensure that at least one male offspring would live to adulthood and inherit the father’s land. How do you increase your odds? Polygany–having multiple wives. There were two types of wives: a full wife and a concubine. The key difference between the two is that a full wife comes from a landowning family and a bride price is exchanged; this is not the case with a concubine. How many wives (full wife or concubine) could a man have? The answer to that is as many as he could afford. The Bible says that Jacob had 4 (2 full wives and 2 concubines). King Solomon had 1,000 (700 wives and 300 concubines). Finally, it is also important to note that these women were not women by our standards-they were girls. Once a young girl had her period, she was considered of marriageable age. This means that biblical marriage would have been men in their 20s or older and girls in their early or mid-teens.

Comparing marriage today to this brief introduction to biblical marriage already reveals that we have changed the biblical definition of marriage. I would argue that it has changed for the better, and unless you like bride prices, polygany, and child brides, you do too.


Old Testament: There are various types of marriages in the Bible. If a man rapes a woman, his punishment is that he must pay double the bride price and marry her (Deuteronomy 22:28-29). This is biblical marriage.

If soldiers go to war, they can “take women” (marry women) for themselves as spoil. This is often referred to as the law of the captive bride. Moses, God’s prophet, tells the people, “When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife.” (Deut 21:10-11). There are rules, however. The subsequent verses tell you what to do with her hair and nails before you sleep with her. This is biblical marriage.

Capturing wives in your spoils of war happens again in Numbers 31. After the Israelites defeated the Midianites, the Israelites bring back spoils of war, including new wives. Moses is outraged by this, but not for the reason you are thinking. He asks, “Have you allowed all the women to live?” When Moses learns that they had taken both virgins and non-virgins as spoils of war, he commands that every non-virgin be killed and only the virgins should become wives (Num 31:17-18). This is biblical marriage.

If a woman’s husband dies without a male offspring, Deuteronomy 25:5-10 tells us that the brother-in-law must impregnate her to carry on his brother’s line. This is called the law of Levirate marriage. Think about that for a minute. Think about how that would play out in your family. This is biblical marriage.

In Ezra 10, we hear that men are commanded to divorce their foreign wives and abandon their foreign children. They then institute a law prohibiting marriage to foreigners. This is biblical marriage.

New Testament: Many Christians will be tempted to say, “Well that’s the Old Testament. The New Testament is clear on this issue.” Are you sure? Many of these marriage customs are in place when Jesus lived in first century Palestine, and the New Testament mentions them without batting an eyelash.

Levirate marriage is evident when the Sadducees question Jesus about the resurrection. They ask, “Teacher, Moses wrote for us that if a man’s brother dies, leaving a wife but no child, the man shall marry the widow and raise up children for his brother. There were seven brothers; the first married and, when he died, left no children; and the second married the widow and died, leaving no children; and the third likewise; none of the seven left children. Last of all the woman herself died. In the resurrection whose wife will she be? For the seven had married her” (Mark 12:18-23). Does Jesus respond with, “We will no longer be making women marry their brother-in-law if their husbands die because that is not the biblical view of marriage”? No. He simply answers their question about the resurrection. Levirate marriage is biblical marriage. 

Polygany is evident when 1 Timothy commands that if you are an elder/deacon in the church, then you are only allowed to have one wife (1 Timothy 3:12). What does this imply about the other Christians who are not deacons? Why would this even need to be said if Jesus made it perfectly clear in the Gospels that the only God-ordained type of marriage is one man and one woman? Polygany is biblical marriage. As a matter of fact, the biblical view on polygany changed when it was outlawed approximately 350 years after Jesus lived. I wonder if people were outraged about changing the definition of marriage when polygany was outlawed.

Adding an interesting caveat in the marriage discussion, the apostle Paul encourages Christians not to marry, arguing Christians would be better off without it (1 Thess 3). For Paul, the only reason to get married would be to avoid burning with passion. If you could not control yourself like Paul, then he concedes that you should marry, “for it is better to marry than to burn with passion” (1 Cor 7:9). Think about adding this passage to your wedding vows because this is another biblical view of marriage.


Although it might be easy and sound pious to claim that you just believe what the Bible says about marriage, for those who have read the Bible, it just sounds creepy. So unless you support bride prices, child brides, polygany, captive brides, rapists marrying their rape victims, and widows marrying their brother-in-law, you actually don’t believe in what the Bible says about marriage.

So what should we believe about the Bible and marriage? Hebrew Bible scholar, Carolyn Pressler, provides a way forward in her article on biblical marriage, stating:

“Good biblical interpretation is not a matter of going to particular verses or chapters, tearing them out of context, wadding them up, and shooting them like bullets at others. Good biblical ethical reflection does not seek to identify the forms of Israelite and Greco-Roman social institutions and apply them as binding over our lives. Sound biblical ethical reflection is a matter of responding with all of our best reasoning ability and with humble love to the great story of the God who creates in lavish abundance and who loves all that God creates with welcoming, justice-seeking, life-giving passion” (Pressler, 211).

In this welcoming, justice-seeking, and life-giving spirit, Christians should look at the recent inclusion of same-sex couples into the sacred covenant of marriage as one of the many changes that cultures have made over the last 2500 years to the definition of marriage. And we would do well to recognize that this change–like the other changes to biblical marriage–has made marriage better for us all.


For more information on the biblical view of marriage, please check out Carolyn Pressler’s, “The ‘Biblical View’ of Marriage,” in Engaging the Bible in a Gendered World, K.D. Sakenfeld Festschrift, ed. Linda Day and Carolyn Pressler (Louisville/London: Westminster John Knox, 2006). You can click on the photo to puchase the book.


21 thoughts on “The Truth about Biblical Marriage

    Cat said:
    July 5, 2015 at 1:16 am

    What you fail to mention is that some are man’s ideas/law’s/rules. They are contrary to what God initiated even though they are recorded in the Bible. While yes they are Biblical in origin they are not Godly. When people have said ‘Biblical’ marriage, they have ignorantly used the phrase to represent marriage as God ordained. Not knowing what the Bible actually ‘says’ gets Christians in trouble all the time.

      Kelly M. Wilson responded:
      July 5, 2015 at 4:13 pm

      Thanks for the comment, Cat. I have three comments on this:
      First, I think that you are assuming that there is a clear line between God’s laws and man’s laws in the Bible.
      Moses received the law of God, so if he speaks it, is it God’s or man’s?
      Second, the Bible itself doesn’t differentiate between the two.
      Third, this isn’t new. People have tried to make this distinction throughout history. Typically we find that people call the laws that they like, God’s laws, and the laws they wish to ignore, they call human laws.

    Stuart said:
    July 7, 2015 at 2:20 pm

    So if same sex marriage is ok I in the Bible (which seems to be the underling point here) where is it? You give lots of ex samples of marriages but that just ends up supporting that Biblically marriage is always between a man and a woman.

      Kelly M. Wilson responded:
      July 8, 2015 at 3:08 am

      Thanks for your comment. I can actually address both of your points with one explanation. You are correct. There are no examples of same-sex couples committing their lives together in a monogamous relationship (which is what we are talking with same-sex marriage) in the Bible. However, you are not accurate when you say that the examples are always man and woman because as I explained in the post, there were times when it was man and women (plural). Aside from that issue, it is true that the marriages that I pointed out involved males and females. But this is due to social and economic restrictions on women. In the ancient world women could not own land; therefore, a man marrying a woman or women was a sort of economic justice issue. There was no social or economic framework in which two men or two women could marry. Imagine what this would look like. Gay men would hoard the land, and lesbians would be landless nomads. So you are correct that all the examples show male-female (and male-females), but hopefully this helps people understand why this is the case. For us, today, it is a non-issue since women can own land. Thank God.

    jacque said:
    July 12, 2015 at 8:29 pm

    As a follower of Jesus, I definitely disagree with this. When reading the Word, you can make crazy things seem ‘biblical’ as you have demonstrated.

      Kelly M. Wilson responded:
      July 12, 2015 at 11:02 pm

      Thanks for the comment, Jacque. I, too, am a follower of Jesus.
      But I am not sure that I understand your comment. With what do you disagree?
      Let me try to clarify that I am not trying to legitimize those “crazy” marriages in the Bible; I am showing that marriage has changed for the better from the time in which the Bible was written.
      Also, I am not the one making “crazy things seem ‘biblical’.” Their very presence in the Bible makes them biblical.

    Anne said:
    July 16, 2015 at 7:56 am

    I am disappointed that this article’s label has the word “truth” in it, because truth is missing in its content. Ms. Wilson you are correct with your observations of how marriage has been used throughout Bible times and between God’s people, but assuming that all of those ways were the way God wanted it were at best misleading. Why do so many people look to Adam and Eve as God’s example of a holy “marriage”? (I understand that it wasn’t yet called marriage at that point.) It is because God himself set it up without man’s interference. All of those other examples you listed were God’s people changing them to fit the times or circumstances. Jesus himself addresses man changing and altering the original plan for marriage in Matthew 19:8, “Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.” Does that human change sound like God was pleased with it although it took place in the Bible? So much of what took place in the Bible God was not happy with and it is written in there so we can learn from it. I was not surprised that you decided to leave out what is written about homosexuality in the Bible, because that is much more difficult to twist. Scripture is clear from the Old Testament to the New that to partake in homosexual activity is a sin. Leviticus 22:18 states “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.” And 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 lists homosexual acts in a list of sins disqualifying us from inheriting the kingdom of heaven. Now the wonderful news is at the end of that verse which states that by Christ we can be washed clean of all of those sins. After we are made clean by Jesus’s we then need to turn from our sin and continue it no more. (John 8:11) This same-sex marriage ruling and movement has been painted as “loving” but something that perpetuates sin is anything but. I pray that your article and your use of Biblical references help to remind people that even scripture can be used to deceive people- just like Satan tries to do to Jesus in the desert (Matthew 4:1-11) And how did Jesus fight Satan? With scripture that He knew well. If people that claim Christ don’t know His Word then they don’t know Him, because they are one in the same (John 1:1)

      Kelly M. Wilson responded:
      July 23, 2015 at 3:01 am

      Anne, thank you for taking the time to read and comment on my post. It is clear from your comment that you and I not only define truth differently, but we also read the Bible differently. You seem to read Gen 1-2, quite narrowly I might add, and interpret it as God’s truth that is binding for all time. That is fine for you; however, that is one of many different interpretations of the creation narratives. As a matter of fact, there are two creation stories (Gen 1-2:4 and 2:5-3:24). Both of those creation stories provides different depictions of the creation narrative; they even contradict at points, so even the narratives that you cite are not as clear cut as you presented them. So what you see as clear “truth” presented in Genesis, I see ancient Israelite conceptions (plural) of the origin of humans.
      The other issue is that you are effectively picking and choosing from the Bible. You choose passages that confirm your preconceived notions/prejudices about human sexuality and call them truth. Passages you dislike, are “man’s interference.” How can you be so sure that the pass that the passages you cite on homosexuality are God’s truth and not man’s interference?
      I left out the passages that you cite are on homosexuality because this was a post on the biblical presentation of marriage, and since men couldn’t marry men and women couldn’t marry women in ancient Israel, I did not address it. Contrary to your claim that I left it out because it is much more difficult to twist, the Bible is not as clear about the issue as you think it is. I will not rehash the scholarly work on the passages you cite, but I would like to direct you to a piece that might help illustrate the complexities surrounding those verses:
      Finally, it might be a little aggressive to compare my mere presentation of marriage in the Bible to Satan deceiving Jesus. I happen to be a practicing Christian who has dedicated the rest of my life to teaching and studying the Bible. So although we disagree on this issue, please keep in mind that we are still sisters in Christ.

        Anne said:
        July 24, 2015 at 11:55 pm

        Romans 1:20-32 really explains your response. And yes my words of rebuke were strong and I believe nessisary, especially since you are a sister in Christ, an influential one at that. I don’t believe I was out of line. Jesus told Peter (who would go on to start Christ’s church) “get back Satan” for merely not wanting Him to die. I will be praying for your eyes to be opened to God’s truth.

        kemi said:
        July 25, 2015 at 8:56 pm

        Hi Kelly, i see you read the bible but i believe you are not clear on some facts in the bible. The Lord clearly goes against same sex intercourse in Lev 20:1-24. Also in verse 22, the Lord told the Isrealite that the land he was giving to them will spit them out if they engage in all the sexual conducts he stated from verse 1 of the Lev. bible passage. Now let us juxtapose it with Gen 18:20-21, the Lord was telling Abraham that the cry of the land called Sodom and Gomorrah was great and he the Lord wants to go there and find out, in Gen 19, the Lord sent his angels and the angels confirmed and destroyed the city. What did the angels confirm precisely? That men were having sex with fellow men. Did the angels destroy the cities? Yes. I encourage you to read 1Tim 1:3-11(ESV) Paul clearly mentioned the ungodly sins that exist like homosexuality and stated that people should not be deceived by unsound doctrines that promote them. Let’s take heed and not be deceived by unsound doctrines as the Lord is holy.

        Kelly M. Wilson responded:
        July 27, 2015 at 2:18 am

        Kemi, thanks for your comment. You are correct about one thing, the Lord is holy; however, you are mistaken on Leviticus and Genesis.
        First, God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah due to some wickedness that is not described. You cited 1 Tim, and that is great, but that is the latest of all the texts interpreting the sin of Sodom. Ezekiel 16:49 says that the sin of Sodom was arrogance and not helping the poor and needy, and Jesus refers to the sin of Sodom when he is talking about inhospitality (Matthew 10:14-15). Understanding the honor/shame culture of the time would help us to understand that inhospitality was probably the sin being described. Ironically, the many Christians who cite Genesis 18-19 against their LGBT neighbors are actually committing the sin of Sodom. The 1 Timothy text reveals that the sin of Sodom later serves as a catchall for a multitude of sins including sexual ones. So it is not as clear as you are presenting it. Also let’s keep in mind that the act that is depicted in Genesis 19 is not homosexuality; it is gang rape. And to be clear, gang rape (or any form of rape) is a violation of the dignity of the human person and it doesn’t matter if it is same-sex or opposite-sex gang rape. Both are vile. The gang rape at Sodom does not represent the LGBT community any more than the gang rape of a woman in Judges 19 represents the heterosexual community.
        Leviticus 17-26 is part of the holiness code that was originally intended for priests in the ancient Israel community. Without going into too much detail, I am simply going to encourage you to read all of Leviticus and make sure that you are not disobeying any of them. Let me help…
        Do you wear clothing of mixed fabric (Lev 19:19)? You shouldn’t.
        Do you eat shellfish (Lev 11:10)? It’s an abomination.
        Do you trim the hair around your temples (Lev 19:27)? Please say no.
        Do you eat pork (Lev 11:7-8)? I hope not.
        Does your garden contain different plants side by side (Lev 19:19)? Perish the thought.
        I could go on, but I think this is really what my original blog post is about. We need to read and understand the Bible in its context before we come against things because we think we understand what the Bible says about any given topic. Or if we don’t want to take the time to do this, perhaps we should just err on the side of loving our neighbor.

        Kelly M. Wilson responded:
        July 26, 2015 at 7:10 pm

        Anne, I think you are misunderstanding Romans 1, but I appreciate your prayers. I would encourage you to pray for a deeper understanding on this issue for yourself, lest you think you have it all figured out.

    Andrew said:
    July 25, 2015 at 12:35 am

    Mark 10:5-9, there, it’s settled. There’s really no further need for debate after reading that. “Mans interference”,”Gods interpretation”, blahbedy blah blah blah. It’s so “refreshing” to see kids nowadays trying to twist the Word of God to fit ones twisted idea of what marriage really is when Christ himself already told us what defines marriage. Your being far too intellectual for your britches young Kelly, and twisting the most simple, clear cut statements in the Bible is a dangerous thing to do, God Himself warns us of this.
    I’m just a simple guy Kelly, the verse I quoted is simple, and Christs teachings were really simple. He used seeds and soil to explain what the kingdom of Heaven was like. So enough of the long drawn out explanations, just read the verse I mentioned over and over and over, and one day you just might get it. But I like Anne’s point that you conveniently left out all the homosexuality stuff in the Bible, lol, that’s awesome, good call Kelly, MIGHT not wanna go there, LOL! Anyway, no need to rebutt my comments Kelly, I won’t respond, I have no further time for you in my life, sorry. Time for me to go straighten out a few more liberals cloaked as Christians. Adios Amigas!!!

      Kelly M. Wilson responded:
      July 26, 2015 at 7:24 pm

      Andrew, we are dealing with ancient texts written in a language that you might not know. This means that if we want to understand what the sacred authors intended by what they wrote, we might want to learn about their language and culture. It’s not about being “too intellectual”, it is about a desire to understand what the sacred authors intended. So I know that you say that you are a simple man, and that is great. But the Bible wasn’t written yesterday in English, so we might want to learn about the historical context of the passages especially if you are using them to discriminate and judge an entire group of people.

        kemi said:
        July 28, 2015 at 4:10 pm

        Kelly, i see you don’t understand the concept of the new convenant we have in Jesus which takes us away from the burden of the law as it is in the Lev. Verses you quoted for me and into grace that we have in Christ (obviously you don’t understand ). Am glad you agree with 1Tim 1 and you agree that same sex intercourse is a sin. Well, Rom 6:23 says the wages of sin is death…. LGBT IS A SIN as well as other forms of sin and no excuse will surfice for the Lord to permit it. I have to say that it is only in Jesus that we find true joy and happiness not in pleasures of the flesh or immoral acts. My prayer for you is that you have a personal encounter with Jesus just like Paul had on the way to Damascus so that you can be able to channel your knowledge of the bible to win people to God and not to take people away from the truth. God bless you.

        Kelly M. Wilson responded:
        July 31, 2015 at 2:16 am

        Why can you quote Leviticus to me, but I cannot quote it to you? This doesn’t seem right.
        And, no, I do not agree that same-sex intercourse is a sin and 1 Timothy 1 doesn’t say it is either.
        We are free to disagree on LGBT issues, but to assume that I have not had a personal encounter with Jesus simply because I do not agree with you is not accurate. I could say that your unwillingness to include and accept LGBT people in the church as brothers and sisters in Christ is evidence that you need a change of heart, and until you open your heart to Christ and allow him to open your mind, you will not experience the joy and happiness that Christ offers people who love him. But I am not going to say that because I don’t know your relationship with God, and it is not up to me to make judgments about your faith. Therefore, I would request that you do the same for those with whom you disagree.
        My prayer for you is that you come to a deeper understanding on LGBT issues so that those around you who are LGBT can be treated with the dignity that God bestows upon them and that they deserve.
        Blessing to you.

    Erin said:
    July 27, 2015 at 12:11 am

    Dr. Wilson…AKA…my favorite cousin-

    I’m proud of you and the work you do. You enrich the lives of so many around you and your students are luck to learn from you. I wish that these people that are commenting on this well written piece would look at something so simple-happiness. I have no bible verse to back it up or any fancy passages to reference…but I do know that God wants everyone to be happy. Man, woman, gay, straight, white, brown or polkadot. I couldn’t be more proud of you and your beautiful family. That is a true blessing…and a beautiful example of happiness. Clearly people didn’t learn the lesson.. ‘If you can’t say anything nice….don’t say anything at all’. How’s that for a quote? 😉 I love you.

    deceptimom said:
    July 27, 2015 at 4:32 am

    Great article. Clear, to the point and factually accurate. Dr. Wilson knows her stuff. Good for you and the work you do by writing this.

    N said:
    July 27, 2015 at 7:20 pm

    Jewish culture was clearly heteronormative – the laws of Leviticus and several other sources strongly indicates that. Whatever may or may not be true about marriage in the Bible, heteronormativity seems strongly embedded in the culture.

    When Christianity first encountered Greek culture, there was a long discussion over what parts of Judaism were essential to the Christian faith, and which could be dispensed with (all of Paul’s letters, basically). Now, in the whole history of the world, there are few cultures which were less heteronormative than Greek/Roman culture. Homosexuality was not only celebrated, but in some respects expected. Although the council in Acts 15 does not mention homosexuality specifically, it is clear from a number of Paul’s letters that he expected Christians, even if they were Greeks, not to participate in homosexual activity. The fact that he mentioned it so often means that it was going on; it was a part of the reality of early Christianity in gentile regions. His writings indicate to me that he probably viewed Jewish heteronormativity as something that must necessarily be retained in Christianity – it is for this reason that Christianity has been for so long so heteronormative, even as definitions of marriage in other forms have changed.

    Since a lot of the changes to biblical marriage that you talk about are already within the view of the New Testament writers era (including ending polygamy and captive brides through slavery, the inclusion of foreigners into the communion of the Church, and most of the other examples you mention), is it still reasonable to claim that those changes (which are evident in the NT, even they weren’t yet effective) can be applied to homosexual marriage, which Paul takes some pains to reinforce Christian practice against?

      Kelly M. Wilson responded:
      July 31, 2015 at 2:08 am

      Nate, thanks for the comment. I miss translating with you!
      First of all, this is a conversation about marriage. Same-sex marriage was not expected nor celebrated in G/R culture. There’s very little foundation in the pater familias for Carrie and I to be married or two men to be married. So if Paul is actually talking about consensual adult same-sex relationships (which I actually don’t think he is), it is certainly not monogamous lifelong committed relationships. In the G/R culture, you know sex was seen as penetrator (dominant/active/masculine) and penetrated (submissive/passive/feminine). Therefore, a freeborn male being the active/dominant partner was permissible; however it was shameful for a freeborn male take on the submissive/passive role in the sex act. Certainly all of this is rooted in patriarchy and gender roles that our culture is struggling to move beyond.
      That said, Paul doesn’t mention it as frequently as you claim. The sexual acts between men that Paul is addressing would have probably taken the form of a male freeborn citizen and a male slave or an older male and a younger male. So I think it is an apples and oranges type of thing. I don’t think Paul has any concept of same-sex, committed, monogamous marriages. Even if he did, then I would put it in the same context as 1 Cor 11:14 (remember your ponytail?) and understand it in its cultural context.
      Blessing to you and your family.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s