My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
res_11003
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Resolutions
>
11xxx
>
11000
>
res_11003
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/12/2012 11:55:44 AM
Creation date
1/15/2015 3:14:33 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Resolutions
Meeting Date
8/27/2012
Resolution #
11003
Resolution Date Passed
8/27/2012
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
3
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
WHEREAS, constitutions historically have been designed and interpreted to protect <br /> minorities from the arbitrary imposition of unjust barriers by the majority; <br /> and <br /> WHEREAS, this amendment if approved, would have a direct negative impact on <br /> Roseville's community, in particular, by denying equal protection of the <br /> law to certain families, decrease the sense of community, and will not <br /> ensure that our city government and its activities,programs and services <br /> are accessible understandable and responsive to all; and <br /> WHEREAS, the City of Roseville recognizes that our city benefits in proportion to its <br /> efforts to ensure cultural and familial diversity and maintain an <br /> environment in which all individuals feel welcome and safe; and <br /> WHEREAS, the City of Roseville recognizes all Roseville residents who have provided <br /> personal, thoughtful, and meaningful insight in support and opposition to <br /> this resolution,; and <br /> NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Roseville City Council hereby states <br /> publicly its opposition to the proposed constitutional amendment entitled, <br /> "Recognition of Marriage Solely Between One Man and One Woman," <br /> and urges Roseville and Minnesota citizens to vote "NO"on Tuesday, <br /> November 6, 2012. <br /> The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Member <br /> Willmus, and upon a vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Pust, <br /> McGehee, Willmus, Johnson, and Roe <br /> and the following voted against the same: none. <br /> WHEREUPON said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.