<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd"
xmlns:rawvoice="http://www.rawvoice.com/rawvoiceRssModule/"
>

<channel>
	<title>Family Policy Network &#187; Maryland</title>
	<atom:link href="http://familypolicy.net/md/md/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://familypolicy.net</link>
	<description>Informing Christians and confronting the culture on the important moral issues of the day</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Feb 2012 16:27:54 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
<!-- podcast_generator="Blubrry PowerPress/2.0.4" -->
	<itunes:summary>Informing Christians and confronting the culture on the important moral issues of the day</itunes:summary>
	<itunes:author>Family Policy Network, Inc.</itunes:author>
	<itunes:explicit>no</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:image href="http://familypolicy.net/mediafiles/powerpress/fpn-favicon-577.jpg" />
	<itunes:owner>
		<itunes:name>Family Policy Network, Inc.</itunes:name>
		<itunes:email>itunes@familypolicy.net</itunes:email>
	</itunes:owner>
	<managingEditor>itunes@familypolicy.net (Family Policy Network, Inc.)</managingEditor>
	<copyright>2011, Family Policy Network, Inc. All rights reserved.</copyright>
	<itunes:subtitle>Informing Christians and confronting the culture on the important moral issues of the day</itunes:subtitle>
	<itunes:keywords>Christian, family, Bible, conservative, prolife, values</itunes:keywords>
	
	<itunes:category text="Religion &amp; Spirituality">
		<itunes:category text="Christianity" />
	</itunes:category>
		<rawvoice:rating>TV-MA</rawvoice:rating>
		<rawvoice:location>Forest, VA</rawvoice:location>
		<rawvoice:frequency>Each Weekday</rawvoice:frequency>
		<item>
		<title>Homosexual &#8220;Marriage&#8221; Avoided in Maryland (For Now)</title>
		<link>http://familypolicy.net/us/?p=6747</link>
		<comments>http://familypolicy.net/us/?p=6747#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Mar 2011 10:35:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Alex Mason</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Maryland]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[National]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Policy Blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[_Issues]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Biblical Marriage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Biblical Sexual Morality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Homosexual "Marriage"]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Homosexual Agenda]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Homosexuality]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://familypolicy.net/?p=6747</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Thankfully, the Maryland House of Delegates has avoided voting on a homosexual "marriage" bill this session. The bill was passed earlier this session by the state senate, but today's development in the House likely means the bill is dead.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://familypolicy.net/us/?p=6747/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Is&#160;Gay &#8220;Marriage&#8221; Coming Soon in Maryland?</title>
		<link>http://familypolicy.net/us/?p=5953</link>
		<comments>http://familypolicy.net/us/?p=5953#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 11 Dec 2010 13:51:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Alex Mason</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Facebook]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Maryland]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[National]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Policy Blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[_Issues]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Biblical Marriage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Biblical Sexual Morality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[God and Government]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Homosexual "Marriage"]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Homosexual Agenda]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Homosexuality]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://familypolicy.net/?p=5953</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<img class="alignright" src="http://familypolicy.net/wp-content/gallery/marriage/marriage.jpg?1813007817" alt="" width="89" height="63" />All was not rosy for social conservatives on Election Day this year. Democrats in Maryland defied national trends and actually gained seats in the state senate. After the Maryland General Assembly convenes in January, a majority of senators will be supportive of homosexual "marriage."]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://familypolicy.net/us/?p=5953/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>FPN Policy Paper on State Marriage Amendments</title>
		<link>http://familypolicy.net/papers/?p=376</link>
		<comments>http://familypolicy.net/papers/?p=376#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 25 Oct 2009 20:27:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Family Policy Network</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Maryland]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[National]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pennsylvania]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Policy Papers]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://familypolicy.net/us/?p=376</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In well-intentioned efforts to curb the erosion of the sanctity of marriage by proposing or passing "marriage amendments" to individual state constitutions, many people believe that merely defining marriage as the union between one man and one woman will do the job of protecting the institution of the family.

Sadly, this is not the case. A state (or federal) marriage amendment that does nothing to protect against homosexual civil unions misses the point of protecting the institution of the family. Such attempts fall victim to the idea that the only thing that needs protecting is the word "marriage."

This policy paper explains Family Policy Network's (FPN) position on state marriage amendments and explains why the differences in language are so important.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://familypolicy.net/papers/?p=376/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Read What Marylanders Are Saying About Universal, Tax-Payer Funded Abortion in Health Care &#8220;Reform&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://familypolicy.net/md/?p=2605</link>
		<comments>http://familypolicy.net/md/?p=2605#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 Jul 2009 19:52:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Family Policy Network</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Maryland]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Petitions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sanctity of Human Life]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://familypolicy.net/?p=2605</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Residents across the state of Maryland are voicing their opposition to a congressional proposal that would use taxpayer money to pay for abortions under the guise of so-called health care "reform".  Pro-family Marylanders are signing Family Policy Network's petition urging both houses of Congress and President Obama to reject health care "reform" that provides universal abortion funding on the backs of American taxpayers.

Many Marylanders who signed the petition opposing taxpayer-funded abortion added their own comments to the statement above. Here is a sampling of those comments:]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://familypolicy.net/md/?p=2605/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>MD Pro-Family Activists Hope To Defeat Law Protecting Homosexual &#8220;Gender Identity&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://familypolicy.net/md/?p=737</link>
		<comments>http://familypolicy.net/md/?p=737#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Aug 2008 23:41:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Family Policy Network</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Maryland]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://familypolicy.net/md/?p=737</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Religious conservatives are hoping a referendum on a Montgomery County law protecting transgender people could become a template to repeal similar measures across the country.

Montgomery County Council members unanimously approved a measure last fall that prohibits discrimination against transgender people in housing, employment, public accommodations, and taxicab and cable service. Council members included an exemption for â€œpersonal and privateâ€ places, but nonetheless drew the ire of local conservatives, who said they feared men would be allowed in womenâ€™s bathrooms and locker rooms.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://familypolicy.net/md/?p=737/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>MD Police Conduct Mass Arrest of Pro-Life Demonstrators Without Warning</title>
		<link>http://familypolicy.net/md/?p=735</link>
		<comments>http://familypolicy.net/md/?p=735#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Aug 2008 18:00:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Family Policy Network</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Maryland]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://familypolicy.net/md/?p=735</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Eighteen pro-lifers participating in the Maryland Face the Truth Tour were arrested without warning by Hartford County State Troopers in the city of Bel Air, Maryland on Friday, August 1, 2008. The group stood peacefully on public property and did not "march" into the street as one news organization erroneously reported. Without warning, an estimated twenty patrol cars arrived on the scene and began arresting pro-life participants without a word. Those arrested were not told what they were being charged with, nor were they read their rights.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://familypolicy.net/md/?p=735/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Baltimore City Council Votes in Support of Homosexual &#8220;Marriage&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://familypolicy.net/md/?p=734</link>
		<comments>http://familypolicy.net/md/?p=734#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 28 Mar 2008 04:23:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Family Policy Network</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Maryland]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://familypolicy.net/md/?p=734</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Baltimore City Council has passed a resolution supporting a separate state Senate bill that would give same-sex couples the right to a civil marriage. 

The city resolution, introduced by Councilman Bill Henry of the 4th District, covering the York Road corridor, passed 9-3 on March 17. One council member abstained, and two were absent.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://familypolicy.net/md/?p=734/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Montgomery County, MD Voters to Decide Fate of &#8220;Gender ID&#8221; Bill</title>
		<link>http://familypolicy.net/md/?p=723</link>
		<comments>http://familypolicy.net/md/?p=723#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 07 Mar 2008 08:00:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Family Policy Network</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Maryland]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://familypolicy.net/md/?p=723</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<strong>[Montgomery County, MD - 3/7/08] â€“</strong> An all-volunteer, grassroots organization opposing Montgomery County, Marylandâ€™s newly passed â€˜gender identityâ€™ bill has been notified their referendum petition has been certified by the local Board of Elections, clearing the way for the measure's repeal to be considered by county voters in November of 2008.

            If enacted, the bill would add â€˜gender identityâ€™ to the Countyâ€™s non-discrimination code which covers public accommodation, employment, housing, taxicab and cable services. The measure loosely defines gender identity as â€œan individualâ€™s actual or perceived gender, including a personâ€™s gender related appearance, expression, image, identity, or behavior, whether or not those gender related characteristics differ from the characteristics customarily associated with the personâ€™s assigned sex at birth.â€ This means that a male appearing as or perceiving he is a female, regardless of his DNA, anatomy, and chromosomal makeup, could gain the legal right to call himself a woman, and use the womanâ€™s facility in any public accommodation. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://familypolicy.net/md/?p=723/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>MD County Votes to Allow Coed Locker Rooms; Pro-Family Groups Outraged</title>
		<link>http://familypolicy.net/md/?p=702</link>
		<comments>http://familypolicy.net/md/?p=702#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Nov 2007 05:57:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Family Policy Network</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Maryland]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://familypolicy.net/md/?p=702</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Coed locker rooms could be a reality now that a new statute to allow people to "choose a gender" has been approved in Maryland.

But the measure, given the green light by elected officials in Montgomery County, will soon be the subject of a court challenge, according to a non-profit public-interest law firm.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://familypolicy.net/md/?p=702/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Maryland County May Allow Sex Deviants in Women&#8217;s Restrooms</title>
		<link>http://familypolicy.net/md/?p=695</link>
		<comments>http://familypolicy.net/md/?p=695#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 04 Nov 2007 04:31:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Family Policy Network</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Maryland]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://familypolicy.net/md/?p=695</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A surge of outrage is developing in Maryland, where the governing council in Montgomery County is planning to vote on a plan to open the doors of its public restrooms, locker rooms and other facilities to those who "perceive" they are that gender. The county plan, Bill 23-07 specifically would augment the state's non-discrimination plan by adding "gender identity" as a protected class.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://familypolicy.net/md/?p=695/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Database Caching 1/50 queries in 0.008 seconds using disk: basic
Object Caching 787/880 objects using disk: basic

Served from: familypolicy.net @ 2012-02-04 03:13:27 -->
