Former Minnesota Vikings and current Baltimore Ravens football player Matt Birk recently spoke out in favor of the Minnesota Marriage Protection Amendment. Here's a link to his remarks.
Showing posts with label marriage amendment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label marriage amendment. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 2, 2012
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Two-thirds of Iowans Want to Vote on Marriage
Good News: Two-Thirds of Iowans Want to Vote on Marriage
Citizen Link
by Jennifer Mesko, staff writer
'The political power in this state rests with the people.'
Two-thirds of Iowa voters want to decide the definition of marriage for themselves, by placing a constitutional amendment on the ballot. Unfortunately, the earliest that could happen is 2012.
The poll, conducted for TheIowaRepublican.com, comes three months after the state Supreme Court dragged same-sex marriage into the Heartland. The results mirror surveys done last year.
"Public opinion on marriage is consistently a 65-70 percent issue," said Bryan English, director of public relations for the Iowa Family Policy Center.
"The numbers tell us that Iowans want the right to vote on the Iowa Marriage Amendment. How the political class responds to these numbers will help separate the wheat from the chaff among those who seek office in 2010."
Of 500 registered Iowa voters contacted by telephone this month, 67 percent agreed "voters should have the chance to vote on a traditional marriage amendment to the constitution." Thirty states have amended their constitutions to protect the definition of marriage.
"Iowa citizens still know what marriage is, and they still know how laws are made," English said. "The political power in this state rests with the people. They are not comfortable with the court making law for them, and on an issue as important as marriage, they want to have their say.
Citizen Link
by Jennifer Mesko, staff writer
'The political power in this state rests with the people.'
Two-thirds of Iowa voters want to decide the definition of marriage for themselves, by placing a constitutional amendment on the ballot. Unfortunately, the earliest that could happen is 2012.
The poll, conducted for TheIowaRepublican.com, comes three months after the state Supreme Court dragged same-sex marriage into the Heartland. The results mirror surveys done last year.
"Public opinion on marriage is consistently a 65-70 percent issue," said Bryan English, director of public relations for the Iowa Family Policy Center.
"The numbers tell us that Iowans want the right to vote on the Iowa Marriage Amendment. How the political class responds to these numbers will help separate the wheat from the chaff among those who seek office in 2010."
Of 500 registered Iowa voters contacted by telephone this month, 67 percent agreed "voters should have the chance to vote on a traditional marriage amendment to the constitution." Thirty states have amended their constitutions to protect the definition of marriage.
"Iowa citizens still know what marriage is, and they still know how laws are made," English said. "The political power in this state rests with the people. They are not comfortable with the court making law for them, and on an issue as important as marriage, they want to have their say.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
You know you are a pastor that has been taken captive if...
The only thing that stands in the way of the legalization of homosexual marriage are pastors who are faithful to God’s design for marriage and family. In Minnesota there are thousands of pastors who have remained faithful but many others have been taken captive by secular dogma.
You know you are a pastor that has been taken captive if…
You believe it’s “hateful” to disagree with a persons’ sexual behavior.
You believe you can’t love someone if you disagree with a persons’ sexual behavior.
You believe that homosexual sex is healthy.
You believe that scientific studies confirm that homosexual sex is healthy.
You know you are a pastor that has been taken captive if…
You believe “civil rights” trumps God’s design for marriage.
You believe God’s design for marriage should not influence our marriage laws.
You believe that God’s design for marriage is nothing more than a list of “benefits and legal rights.”
You believe that the definition of marriage is a secret plot to elect republicans.
You know you are a pastor that has been taken captive if…
You believe that God’s design for children to have a mother and a father is strictly a religious belief.
You believe that a child’s need for a mother and a father is not scientific.
You believe “two loving people in a committed relationship” are the same as a mother and a father.
You know you are a pastor that has been taken captive if…
You believe that God’s design for marriage is “intolerant” or “homophobic.”
You believe “all you need is love.”
You believe that God’s design for marriage is not scientific.
You believe that God’s design for man, woman and marriage is strictly a religious belief.
You believe God’s design for man and woman is not scientific.
You believe that legalizing homosexual marriage will improve God’s design for marriage.
You know you are a pastor that has been taken captive if…
You are afraid to speak the truth.
You know you are a pastor that has been taken captive if…
You believe it’s “hateful” to disagree with a persons’ sexual behavior.
You believe you can’t love someone if you disagree with a persons’ sexual behavior.
You believe that homosexual sex is healthy.
You believe that scientific studies confirm that homosexual sex is healthy.
You know you are a pastor that has been taken captive if…
You believe “civil rights” trumps God’s design for marriage.
You believe God’s design for marriage should not influence our marriage laws.
You believe that God’s design for marriage is nothing more than a list of “benefits and legal rights.”
You believe that the definition of marriage is a secret plot to elect republicans.
You know you are a pastor that has been taken captive if…
You believe that God’s design for children to have a mother and a father is strictly a religious belief.
You believe that a child’s need for a mother and a father is not scientific.
You believe “two loving people in a committed relationship” are the same as a mother and a father.
You know you are a pastor that has been taken captive if…
You believe that God’s design for marriage is “intolerant” or “homophobic.”
You believe “all you need is love.”
You believe that God’s design for marriage is not scientific.
You believe that God’s design for man, woman and marriage is strictly a religious belief.
You believe God’s design for man and woman is not scientific.
You believe that legalizing homosexual marriage will improve God’s design for marriage.
You know you are a pastor that has been taken captive if…
You are afraid to speak the truth.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Amendments to protect marriage pass in all three states
Amendments to define marriage as the union between one man and one woman passed in all three states including California where the State Supreme Court legalized homosexual “marriage” in May. With the addition of Florida, Arizona and California, a total of 30 states have now amended their constitutions to protect the sanctity of marriage.
Arizona voters, who rejected a marriage-protection amendment two years ago voted to protect marriage this time around.
In the past, efforts to allow the people of Minnesota to protect marriage via a marriage amendment were blocked by liberals in the state legislature. In 2008, a bill to legalize homosexual marriage was introduced in the Minnesota State Legislature. The bill immediately received 19 sponsors.
Arizona voters, who rejected a marriage-protection amendment two years ago voted to protect marriage this time around.
In the past, efforts to allow the people of Minnesota to protect marriage via a marriage amendment were blocked by liberals in the state legislature. In 2008, a bill to legalize homosexual marriage was introduced in the Minnesota State Legislature. The bill immediately received 19 sponsors.
Monday, September 24, 2007
Dobson says Fred Thompson "not for me"
Dobson says Thompson 'not for me'
Evangelical leader cites candidate's opposition to federal marriage amendment
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
Focus on the Family founder James Dobson, who previously questioned GOP presidential candidate Fred Thompson's viability among evangelical voters, now has told friends he cannot support the former Tennessee senator.
In an email to friends, according to the Associated Press, Dobson said he won't be supporting Thompson: "Not for me, my brothers. Not for me!"
Dobson raised questions about the strength of Thompson's campaign and challenged his stance on issues important to evangelical Christians, for whom Dobson is widely considered an important voice.
"Isn't Thompson the candidate who is opposed to a Constitutional amendment to protect marriage, believes there should be 50 different definitions of marriage in the U.S., favors McCain-Feingold, won't talk at all about what he believes, and can't speak his way out of a paper bag on the campaign trail?" Dobson's e-mail said.
As WND reported in March, Dobson was quoted by U.S. News and World Report saying, "Everyone knows [Thompson's] conservative and has come out strongly for the things that the pro-family movement stands for, [but] I don't think he's a Christian; at least that's my impression."
A spokesman for Focus on the Family issued a clarification, explaining Dobson did not mean to disparage Thompson and was "attempting to highlight that to the best of his knowledge, Sen. Thompson hadn't clearly communicated his religious faith, and many evangelical Christians might find this a barrier to supporting him."
In his e-mail, Dobson wrote of Thompson: "He has no passion, no zeal, and no apparent 'want to.' And yet he is apparently the Great Hope that burns in the breasts of many conservative Christians? Well, not for me, my brothers. Not for me!"
A Focus on the Family spokesman told the AP Dobson wrote the e-mail, but he couldn't comment because the statements were made by Dobson as an individual, not as a representative of Focus on the Family.
A spokeswoman for the Thompson campaign, Karen Hanretty, defended the candidate in an e-mail response to AP.
"Fred Thompson has a 100 percent pro-life voting record," she wrote. "He believes strongly in returning authority to the levels of government closest to families and communities, protecting states from intrusion by the federal government and activist judges. We're confident as voters get to know Fred, they'll appreciate his conservative principles, and he is the one conservative in this race who can win the nomination and can go on to defeat the Democratic nominee."
The Republican base has been split on Thompson, with some viewing him as an heir to President Reagan's legacy and others, like Dobson, expressing concern about his stance on homosexual marriage and other social issues.
On the issue of same-sex marriage, for example, Thompson has said he would support a plan to prohibit states from imposing their marriage laws on other states. That's far short of what many evangelicals seek: a federal amendment limiting marriage to one man and one woman.
The e-mail included a news article referencing Thompson's comment that he does not attend church regularly and won't speak about his faith during the campaign. Those remarks prompted Dobson to write that his assumptions "about the former senator's never having professed to be a Christian are turning out to be accurate in substance."
Previously, in an exclusive column for WND, Dobson said he wouldn't back former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani because of his "unapologetic" support for abortion on demand, and he later said he couldn't back Sen. John McCain because of the Arizona senator's opposition to a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.
Thompson only recently confirmed his candidacy, immediately bouncing into the lead ahead of Giuliani in at least one poll. Rasmussen Reports' Presidential Tracking Poll showed him favored by 26 percent of likely Republican primary voters right after his announcement. Giuliani, who has been the frontrunner most of the year, was in second with 22 percent and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney was a distant third at 13 percent.
Evangelical leader cites candidate's opposition to federal marriage amendment
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
Focus on the Family founder James Dobson, who previously questioned GOP presidential candidate Fred Thompson's viability among evangelical voters, now has told friends he cannot support the former Tennessee senator.
In an email to friends, according to the Associated Press, Dobson said he won't be supporting Thompson: "Not for me, my brothers. Not for me!"
Dobson raised questions about the strength of Thompson's campaign and challenged his stance on issues important to evangelical Christians, for whom Dobson is widely considered an important voice.
"Isn't Thompson the candidate who is opposed to a Constitutional amendment to protect marriage, believes there should be 50 different definitions of marriage in the U.S., favors McCain-Feingold, won't talk at all about what he believes, and can't speak his way out of a paper bag on the campaign trail?" Dobson's e-mail said.
As WND reported in March, Dobson was quoted by U.S. News and World Report saying, "Everyone knows [Thompson's] conservative and has come out strongly for the things that the pro-family movement stands for, [but] I don't think he's a Christian; at least that's my impression."
A spokesman for Focus on the Family issued a clarification, explaining Dobson did not mean to disparage Thompson and was "attempting to highlight that to the best of his knowledge, Sen. Thompson hadn't clearly communicated his religious faith, and many evangelical Christians might find this a barrier to supporting him."
In his e-mail, Dobson wrote of Thompson: "He has no passion, no zeal, and no apparent 'want to.' And yet he is apparently the Great Hope that burns in the breasts of many conservative Christians? Well, not for me, my brothers. Not for me!"
A Focus on the Family spokesman told the AP Dobson wrote the e-mail, but he couldn't comment because the statements were made by Dobson as an individual, not as a representative of Focus on the Family.
A spokeswoman for the Thompson campaign, Karen Hanretty, defended the candidate in an e-mail response to AP.
"Fred Thompson has a 100 percent pro-life voting record," she wrote. "He believes strongly in returning authority to the levels of government closest to families and communities, protecting states from intrusion by the federal government and activist judges. We're confident as voters get to know Fred, they'll appreciate his conservative principles, and he is the one conservative in this race who can win the nomination and can go on to defeat the Democratic nominee."
The Republican base has been split on Thompson, with some viewing him as an heir to President Reagan's legacy and others, like Dobson, expressing concern about his stance on homosexual marriage and other social issues.
On the issue of same-sex marriage, for example, Thompson has said he would support a plan to prohibit states from imposing their marriage laws on other states. That's far short of what many evangelicals seek: a federal amendment limiting marriage to one man and one woman.
The e-mail included a news article referencing Thompson's comment that he does not attend church regularly and won't speak about his faith during the campaign. Those remarks prompted Dobson to write that his assumptions "about the former senator's never having professed to be a Christian are turning out to be accurate in substance."
Previously, in an exclusive column for WND, Dobson said he wouldn't back former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani because of his "unapologetic" support for abortion on demand, and he later said he couldn't back Sen. John McCain because of the Arizona senator's opposition to a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.
Thompson only recently confirmed his candidacy, immediately bouncing into the lead ahead of Giuliani in at least one poll. Rasmussen Reports' Presidential Tracking Poll showed him favored by 26 percent of likely Republican primary voters right after his announcement. Giuliani, who has been the frontrunner most of the year, was in second with 22 percent and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney was a distant third at 13 percent.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Minnesota, are you listening?
By Chuck Darrell
Be sure to read “As Iowa shows, a marriage law isn’t enough” by Katherine Kersten of the Star Tribune.
Kersten writes, “In the end, we don't need Iowa's Judge Hanson to remind us that traditional marriage is under assault.
'Almost half of the country's marriage laws are or have been under attack by a small group who want to force their will on the people in the guise of constitutional adjudication,' wrote Teresa Stanton Collett, a professor at the University of St. Thomas School of Law, in a 2007 William Mitchell Law Review article.
Courts in 11 states have ordered legal recognition of same-sex unions, according to Collett -- 12, counting Iowa. In 2003, Massachusetts' high court voted 4-3 -- a mere one vote difference -- to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples. In states such as New York and Washington, high courts have upheld one-man, one-woman marriage.
The only way to prevent state courts from redefining marriage is to define it in a state's constitution. Twenty-seven states have done so, according to the Marriage Law Foundation, and 23 did so even though they had a law defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.”
Well said.
Be sure to read “As Iowa shows, a marriage law isn’t enough” by Katherine Kersten of the Star Tribune.
Kersten writes, “In the end, we don't need Iowa's Judge Hanson to remind us that traditional marriage is under assault.
'Almost half of the country's marriage laws are or have been under attack by a small group who want to force their will on the people in the guise of constitutional adjudication,' wrote Teresa Stanton Collett, a professor at the University of St. Thomas School of Law, in a 2007 William Mitchell Law Review article.
Courts in 11 states have ordered legal recognition of same-sex unions, according to Collett -- 12, counting Iowa. In 2003, Massachusetts' high court voted 4-3 -- a mere one vote difference -- to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples. In states such as New York and Washington, high courts have upheld one-man, one-woman marriage.
The only way to prevent state courts from redefining marriage is to define it in a state's constitution. Twenty-seven states have done so, according to the Marriage Law Foundation, and 23 did so even though they had a law defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.”
Well said.
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Rummel exposed
Senator Sandy Rummel (DFL-White Bear Lake) has been exposed as the beneficiary of efforts by wealthy anti-marriage amendment activists to reshape Minnesota's state legislature. Perhaps this is why she supported mandatory sex ed and the teaching of unhealthy sex activities to children grades 7-12.
It ain't over until it is over. However...
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.
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.
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Let the People Vote
OutFront's plan to legalize same-sex marriage took a hit today from Sen. Warren Limmer and Rep. Dan Severson. Limmer and Severson announced the recent introduction of six Marriage Amendment bills to the legislature and exposed OutFront's agenda to achieve same-sex marriage via domestic partnerships and other legislation."After hearing Democrat caucus leaders suggest that this year's session was one that should be focused on budgets and more basic legalisation," said Severson, "we were surprised by the progress of bills that promoted divisive issues such as legally recognized same-sex domestic partnerships, and comprehensive sex education for elementary children. We must push the Marriage Amendment at this time."
"There is no question, the people want the opportunity to define marriage. In light of other liberal bills recognizing same-sex domestic relationships in the same way marriage is recognized, the time for a Marriage Amendment is now," said Sen. Limmer.
"Marriage is a bread and butter issue," said Rep. Tom Emmer. Emmer felt the votes existed to pass an amendment in the House, however, the bill has yet to be given a hearing.
The press conference was supported by nearly 50 CEO's from Christian Network Team. Also attending the press conference were Sen. Ingebrigtson, Sen. Gen Olson, Rep. Mike Beard, Rep. Bruce Anderson, Rep. Sondra Erickson.
"There is no question, the people want the opportunity to define marriage. In light of other liberal bills recognizing same-sex domestic relationships in the same way marriage is recognized, the time for a Marriage Amendment is now," said Sen. Limmer."Marriage is a bread and butter issue," said Rep. Tom Emmer. Emmer felt the votes existed to pass an amendment in the House, however, the bill has yet to be given a hearing.
The press conference was supported by nearly 50 CEO's from Christian Network Team. Also attending the press conference were Sen. Ingebrigtson, Sen. Gen Olson, Rep. Mike Beard, Rep. Bruce Anderson, Rep. Sondra Erickson.
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.”
Thursday, March 1, 2007
2nd benefits bill "requires" state to redefine domestic partner to include another adult of same-sex
By Chuck Darrell
Just days after introducing a bill that would allow municipalities the option of extending benefits to same-sex couples, a new bill has been introduced that would "require" state government to provide same. The bill would also redefine domestic partner as person of same sex.
This new bill is one of nine legislative proposals being pushed by OutFront this session.
So much for local control, now OutFront is requiring taxpayer funded benefits for same-sex couples state-wide. Excerpts from the bill indicate an aggressive attempt to redefine family state-wide.
"A bill for an act relating to state employees; requiring that health insurance benefits be made available to domestic partners of state employees..."
"'Domestic partner' means a person who has entered into a committed interdependent relationship with another adult of the same sex,..."
This is why Minnesota needs a marriage amendment. Last year legislators assured voters that our laws were sufficient to protect marriage and denied Minnesotan's the right to vote. We now call upon those legislators to assurethat these bills never make it out of committee - and begin efforts to pass the Minnesota Marriage Protection Amendment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
