Thank you Governor Tim Pawlenty.
The incremental assault on marriage by OutFront has been put on hold for the remainder of the regular session. All references to domestic partners, implied or otherwise, have been removed.
Efforts to redefine hospital visitation privileges as domestic partnerships for same-sex couples have been postponed - until next session no doubt.
Efforts to legalize smoked "medical" marijuana by exploiting the sick may meet the same fate. MFC agrees with medical experts that any medicinal qualities in pot should go through the FDA approval process. And, that the active ingredient in pot should not be administered via smoking a marijuana cigarette.
The push to mandate sex education for children grades 7-12 is coming under fire. Gov. Tim Pawlenty indicated he did not want the mandate in the E-12 education funding bill. Something must have happened in conference committee as the bill was pulled to the senate floor without going to the finance committee. (Against senate rules.)
Perhaps the DFL could not muster the votes in committee. Several Senators reported receiving calls from constituents asking them to remove mandatory sex ed provision. Children don't need to be taught how to perform anal-oral sex with a dental dam.
A special thanks to Sen. Saltzman and Sen Vickerman for voting to remove mandatory sex ed from the bill. Unfortunately is was defeated.
Please call Gov. Pawlenty and thank him for protecting marriage and urge him to veto E-12 if it contains mandatory sex education.
Showing posts with label domestic partner. Show all posts
Showing posts with label domestic partner. Show all posts
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Wednesday, May 9, 2007
"Significant individual" singled out
In addition to local government, Governor Pawlenty identified "significant individual" as unacceptable in his letter vetoing Senate File 1997.
"The bill has not removed all of the domestic partner provisions as I have previously requested. Moreover, a provision remains in the bill that would permit the unlimited expansion of employee benefits to domestic partners and others by local units of government. Again, I am opposed to any legislation concerning domestic partners benefits, including the bill's study and the definition of 'significant individual.'"
"The bill has not removed all of the domestic partner provisions as I have previously requested. Moreover, a provision remains in the bill that would permit the unlimited expansion of employee benefits to domestic partners and others by local units of government. Again, I am opposed to any legislation concerning domestic partners benefits, including the bill's study and the definition of 'significant individual.'"
Language gone but the result is the same
There is a major misperception regarding the "removal" of domestic partnerships from the state and government omnibus bill. Although the terms "domestic partner" and "same-sex" were removed from the state provision of the bill, the result is the same. Marrriage-like status would be granted to same-sex couples at the state level.
Governor Pawlenty vetoed the bill and called special attention to the language that would have allowed municipal governments to create marriage-like benefits. Nothing was said about the state provision. As the municipal language is more vague, we believe the Governor will veto any future bills containing loopholes that create marriage-like status at the state and municipal levels.
Governor Pawlenty vetoed the bill and called special attention to the language that would have allowed municipal governments to create marriage-like benefits. Nothing was said about the state provision. As the municipal language is more vague, we believe the Governor will veto any future bills containing loopholes that create marriage-like status at the state and municipal levels.
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.”
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.”
Saturday, March 24, 2007
Domestic partner benefits for same-sex partners only.
By Chuck Darrell
The true nature of the discriminatory domestic partnership provision in the senate omnibus bill was revealed today by Sen. Sandy Pappas who admitted the intent of the "insurance" provision was to recognize committed relationships by people of the same sex.
Although the bill defines domestic partnership as person's of the same-sex only, Sen. Don Betzold was confused as to how anyone could "pretend" and "read stuff" into the wording.
Benefits were denied for two sisters or two brothers, a child and a dependent parent, a brother and a sister, two heterosexuals in a committed relationship, etc.
Honest common sense was provided by Sen. Tom Neuville, "I don't believe this is about insurance. I believe it is about laying a building block or corner stone for same-sex marriage."
I think Sen. Pappas would agree.
Sen. Dave Hann stated this is why we need an amendment to define marriage as between one man and one woman.
The true nature of the discriminatory domestic partnership provision in the senate omnibus bill was revealed today by Sen. Sandy Pappas who admitted the intent of the "insurance" provision was to recognize committed relationships by people of the same sex.
Although the bill defines domestic partnership as person's of the same-sex only, Sen. Don Betzold was confused as to how anyone could "pretend" and "read stuff" into the wording.
Benefits were denied for two sisters or two brothers, a child and a dependent parent, a brother and a sister, two heterosexuals in a committed relationship, etc.
Honest common sense was provided by Sen. Tom Neuville, "I don't believe this is about insurance. I believe it is about laying a building block or corner stone for same-sex marriage."
I think Sen. Pappas would agree.
Sen. Dave Hann stated this is why we need an amendment to define marriage as between one man and one woman.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
OutFront demands discriminatory, domestic partner status to allow two in an emergency room - everyone else can wait.
By Chuck Darrell
Like most hospitals in the metro area, MFC supports visitation privileges for homosexual couples. In fact, a brief survey of a half dozen metro area hospitals failed to discover a hospital that denied visitation to homosexual partners. One hospital rhetorically asked how they would know if a visitor was a brother, sister, or lover?
So, if gay partners can already visit one another in the hospital, then why does OutFront insist upon passing legislation (HF 1589, SF 1398) creating special "domestic partner" status for homosexual visitation purposes?
Lindsay's partner was wasting her time if she was using her sexual orientation to justify her right to be in the emergency room. The same survey discovered that hospitals have a general policy of allowing only one person in an emergency room with a patient at a time. Since Lindsay was already in the emergency room, her partner simply had to wait her turn - like everyone else.
Do homosexuals really need special "domestic partner" status to allow two in an emergency room? Are their needs any different than other emergency room patients?
Clearly, OutFront is trying to create a special, discriminatory status where none is needed.
Like most hospitals in the metro area, MFC supports visitation privileges for homosexual couples. In fact, a brief survey of a half dozen metro area hospitals failed to discover a hospital that denied visitation to homosexual partners. One hospital rhetorically asked how they would know if a visitor was a brother, sister, or lover?
So, if gay partners can already visit one another in the hospital, then why does OutFront insist upon passing legislation (HF 1589, SF 1398) creating special "domestic partner" status for homosexual visitation purposes?
Apparently because they want special emergency room privledges.
A recent OutFront press release shed light on "Compelling" senate testimony by J. Lindsay Flint, "whose partner was denied access to the emergency room where Lindsay was with their two-year-old son as he was suffering from pneumonia. 'I am scared because I know my son is very ill and not able to breathe. The last thing I want to be doing is justifying why we both had the right to be in this room.'"Lindsay's partner was wasting her time if she was using her sexual orientation to justify her right to be in the emergency room. The same survey discovered that hospitals have a general policy of allowing only one person in an emergency room with a patient at a time. Since Lindsay was already in the emergency room, her partner simply had to wait her turn - like everyone else.
Do homosexuals really need special "domestic partner" status to allow two in an emergency room? Are their needs any different than other emergency room patients?
Clearly, OutFront is trying to create a special, discriminatory status where none is needed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)