Wednesday, March 28, 2007

Homosexual couple sues Rochester Athletic Club

Press Release

Homosexual couple sues Rochester Athletic Club over refusal to treat them like a married couple

Group links lawsuit with legislative efforts to create domestic status for homosexual couples as part of systematic effort to redefine marriage in Minnesota

MINNEAPOLIS – Tom Prichard, president of the Minnesota Family Council (MFC), said a lawsuit challenging the Rochester Athletic Club’s family membership policy which recognizes only married couples in their family membership is part of a systematic effort to redefine marriage in Minnesota.

“This lawsuit is another example of efforts by homosexual activists to redefine marriage. They’re using the legal system as well as the legislative process to achieve their goals,” said Prichard.

The Rochester Athletic Club is being sued by a lesbian couple who claim the Athletic Club’s family policy, which applies toward “legally married only” couples, is a violation of the state’s anti-discrimination laws based on sexual orientation.

“We’re seeing a systematic effort by homosexual activists at the legislature to lay the legal foundation for overturning Minnesota’s marriages. Now they’re attempting to force private organizations to treat homosexual couples on par with married couples. That certainly sounds like a push towards same sex marriage to me,” said Prichard.

“A vote in favor of domestic partner status for gay couples is a vote to legalize same-sex marriage,” said Chuck Darrell, MFC director of communications. “OutFront is sending a clear signal that they will never compromise until same-sex marriage is legalized. This is exactly why we need a marriage amendment,” he said.

In the state legislature, bills are moving forward which will provide marital benefits and marital type status for homosexual state employees (SF 1369/HF 1618) and local government employees (SF 960/HF 1097) through domestic partnerships. Domestic partner recognition is also being pushed for hospital visitation (SF 1398/HF 1589) and sick leave benefits (SF 1128/HF 219).

“The end game in all of this is a legal imposition of homosexual marriage upon the state of Minnesota. Domestic partner benefits and a legal attack on private businesses are merely part of their strategy,” concluded Prichard. “The result will be the further destabilization and redefinition of marriage. All of society suffers when marriage breaks down, particularly children who will be even more unlikely to be raised by a mother and a father.”