Gays shouldn’t be able to adopt children: III

Since we’re on the subject … there is a proposed Minnesota constitutional amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The debate has turned to the so-called “immorality” of homosexuality. Which shouldn’t be a debate at all.

Anyhow, Steve Simon (DFL Hopkins/St. Louis Park) nails it.

History will judge these people very poorly. Very

 

PS: This man is named Tom Pritchard. He works for the Minnesota Family Council. Like many of his ilk, I suspect he has uncomfortable feelings about sexuality. Why do I say so? Because why else would any human being come out so strongly against something like this? Again, there’s an increasingly strong tie between the nation’s most vocal anti-gay marriage purveyors and their, ahem, inevitable actions.

PPS: And this woman, Barb Davis White, seems even worse …

2 thoughts on “Gays shouldn’t be able to adopt children: III”

  1. Hooray for these fine Patriots and Servants in the great state of Minnesota!!!!! This is what America needs and they represent the REAL America and not the fake New York and Hollywood that are trying to push homosexuality on the rest of America.

    God bless them all and God bless the USA!!!!!!!!!!

  2. While I agree the discussion shouldn’t be about morality, I do think the definition of marriage should be a union between a man and a woman.
    I believe domestic partners should have the same rights as a married couple.
    I don’t think it is right to run around changing the English language for no reason.
    It is bad enough we have changed the definition of the word “Gay”.
    http://s-ak.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/terminal01/2010/5/18/16/enhanced-buzz-12159-1274214138-10.jpg

Leave a Reply