Video: Religious-free unions only a decade or so old, claims MN For Marriage's willfully deceitful video
Here's an article from 1937 that clearly articulates the obvious distinction between the civil marriage that is demanded of any couple wanting recognition and the religious component that is always optional:
The truth, of course, is that millions of couples have married without religion being in play. And *EVERY* couple who is recognized as married in this country has had to go through the civil paperwork if they wish to receive rights and benefits.
But never mind those facts. Instead, let Minnesota For Marriage's Kalley Yanta tell you how "it has only been in the last ten years or so" that the religious and civil components have been distinguished:
My question: Does Minnesota for Marriage personalities separate their civil lies from their religious ones?
*Oh, and for a takedown of that deeply partisan journal that Ms. Yanta keeps trying to make sound nothing but scholarly, check out the bottom of this post.
comments powered by Disqus