Saturday, November 07, 2009 Last Update:12:05 pm ET

Education|Thu, Mar. 19 2009 07:27 PM EDT

Dictionary Redefines 'Marriage' to Include Same-Sex Couples

By Elena Garcia|Christian Post Reporter

One major dictionary company has defined marriage in broader terms than the U.S. government.

Similar to the definition of marriage under federal law, Merriam-Webster states marriage as "the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law." Every state in the nation recognizes marriage on similar terms except for Connecticut and Massachusetts.

But the dictionary runs askew from legal recognition of marriage by the federal government and almost all the states by tacking on a secondary definition that counts unions between same-sex couples as "marriage."

Merriam-Webster added the secondary meaning for marriage in 2003, even before gay marriage was legalized anywhere in the country. Whereas the company's dictionary editions prior to 2003 stated no mention of same-sex marriage, the latest version now defines marriage also as "the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage."

The change went unnoticed until WorldNetDaily recently reported on a YouTube video calling attention to the marriage "redefinition."

The video prompted heated responses including one from a forum participant who charged gay rights activists with trying to control the definition of marriage in an effort to push their agenda.

"The word 'marriage' has never been synonymous with same sex relationships," said the forum participant, according to WorldNetDaily. "What is happening is the meaning is being changed to trigger it becoming synonymous, not the other way round."

Kory Stamper, an associate editor at Merriam-Webster, denied any "social or political agenda" behind the decision to change how the dictionary defines marriage, according to WND.

"We hear such criticism from all parts of the political spectrum. We're genuinely sorry when an entry in – or an omission from – one of our dictionaries is found to be offensive or upsetting, but we can't allow such considerations to deflect us from our primary job as lexicographers," stated Stamper.

The Springfield, Mass.-based company issued a statement Wednesday claiming that the secondary definition was added to reflect the frequency of "same-sex marriage" and "gay marriage" in publications.

"In recent years, this sense of 'marriage' has appeared frequently and consistently through a broad spectrum of carefully edited publications, and is often used in phrases such as 'same-sex marriage' and 'gay marriage' by proponents and opponents alike," the statement read, according to the Associated Press. "Its inclusion was a simple matter of providing dictionary users with accurate information about all of the word's current uses."

Merriam-Webster spokesman Arthur Bicknell noted that the company was one of the last major dictionary publishers to revise the definition of marriage to include homosexual unions.

The controversy over gay marriage is expected to heat up once again since the Obama administration has said it will seek the full repeal of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as a union between a man and woman for all purposes of federal law and protects states from being forced to recognized same-sex marriages from other states.

Many states, in the meantime, are still wrangling over the legal issue of gay marriage. The California Supreme Court is expected to soon issue its ruling on a gay marriage ban approved by voters in November. Earlier this week, Vermont became the latest state to introduce legislation to legalize same-sex marriage.

Despite what dictionaries may call marriage, many religious leaders have said that changing the definition of marriage will not necessarily change its meaning.

Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, called redefining marriage to include same-sex couples was "moral insanity," when The Canadian Oxford Dictionary announced in 2003 that it was changing the definition of marriage to read "the legal or religious union of two people."

"We did not invent marriage; it is the God-ordained covenant that unites a man and a woman in the monogamous marital union, establishes a new household, and liberates the married couple to enjoy all the benefits - and bear all the responsibilities - of married life and parenthood," stated Mohler on his blog. "Homosexual activists may win in the courts and in the dictionary, but they cannot reverse reality."

Sort by: Newest | Oldest | Agree | Disagree
All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Christian Post or its staff.
1 | 2 | 3
  • Thu Mar 26, 2009 8:05 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "watch Mickey try to avoid embarassment by playing these games. "

    I'm more concerned with what will be unavoidable for the pro-gay folks before the throne.

  • Thu Mar 26, 2009 8:04 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    I was making reference to the "code talkers" of WWII. Just another dry joke from the peanut gallery....

  • Thu Mar 26, 2009 4:54 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Daniel,

    No. But it's funny to watch Mickey try to avoid embarassment by playing these games.

  • Thu Mar 26, 2009 2:13 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "Does this mean something or are we talking in code? "

    Are either of you American Indian?

  • Wed Mar 25, 2009 10:15 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    "How's that crow?"

    I don't know, how's yours? Does this mean something or are we talking in code?

  • Wed Mar 25, 2009 5:57 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

    Mickey,

    How's that crow?

  • Wed Mar 25, 2009 5:52 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    "I'm sure glad God will sort all this out."

    Me too! So what do you say, instead of condemning everyone and pretending to speak for God, why don't we just let Him do his job when the time comes. That way everyone will be responsible for his or her fate. Doesn't that sound like a good plan?

  • Wed Mar 25, 2009 5:50 pm Agree: 4   Disagree: 4

    "Homosexuality is a sin"

    No it isn't. God never said it was, the Bible doesn't say it is and it gets REALLY boring seeing you post the same nonsense day after day.

  • Wed Mar 25, 2009 4:36 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

    "That would be when we have been telling you what is written in plain greek in Romans 1 instead of enabling your pro-gay codependent homosexuality."

    No that would be YOUR interpretation of Romans which has nothing to do with the actual facts of Paul and Romans.

  • Wed Mar 25, 2009 1:15 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

    "So when will you start giving the truth? "

    That would be when we have been telling you what is written in plain greek in Romans 1 instead of enabling your pro-gay codependent homosexuality.

  • Tue Mar 24, 2009 10:28 am Agree: 3   Disagree: 1

    "MickeyC, you do not want God. "

    Since you do not know God or me, how would you know?

  • Tue Mar 24, 2009 10:27 am Agree: 3   Disagree: 2

    "When it comes to real love, I do love, giving truth is love,"

    So when will you start giving the truth?

  • Mon Mar 23, 2009 10:13 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

    MickeyC, you do not want God.

  • Mon Mar 23, 2009 9:45 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 3

    "I know what your point is and what your agenda is. I am well acquainted with what makes people like you tick. I even know who you work for!"

    The sad fact is you don't really know anyone other than yourself and you don't even know yourself well. Your fear and hate drive you instead of love. Sad, sad person that you are, I can only point you to the love of God and away from you evil condemnation of your fellow man. You don't know other men and you certainly don't know God. Sad..

  • Mon Mar 23, 2009 9:36 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    "I know where you are going. You may get to find out which is better to defend your country or roll over an let the enemy put you in bondage. I understand you are part of that Chuck Schumer liberal agenda. If our military had not defended us all these years, you may not have not had the freedom to spew your rhetoric on here tonight. If you are not a Veteran and my guess you are not, you should have been given the chance to defend your country, you would appreciate it much more, if you could have handled it."

    My point simply was that men can kill other men and it's acceptable for them, not just for God. I guess polygamy is about the same.

  • Mon Mar 23, 2009 8:33 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    "We are not to kill each other but he will pour His wrath out on all who reject His Son and do not make Him both LORD and SAVIOR."

    You meant to say EXCEPT in the case of war, for instance. Then we can kill people too?

  • Mon Mar 23, 2009 8:32 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    "And you ain't God either. Your problem is you think you can make your own rules which is every man's downfall. God can do things we can not do. We are not to kill each other but he will pour His wrath out on all who reject His Son and do not make Him both LORD and SAVIOR."

    Nope, I just won't give in to perverting the message of God like many. Seems to drive you wild. Pity. At least you acknowledge that God gave one man's wives to another man for sex. That's a start as we now see that other forms of marriage are supported by God.

  • Mon Mar 23, 2009 8:00 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    "mc, if you want to believe God condones sin that is your choice, because Absalom had sex with these women he did not marry them and this was a consequence of the sin of David which God allowed to take place. The same way He may allows someone who is shot in a drive by shooting die, so are you saying He made the person shoot the gun and God killed the person who got shot. Sin has consequences and many times God chooses not to interfere with those consequences and the passage in II Samuel you cite is one of them, but it certainly does not teach that God ordained any other form of marriage and especially since no marriage ever takes place in this passage and shortly after this Absalom is killed."

    Once again you doubt God. He clearly said that was giving one man's wives to another when He could have just as easily not. He even says that the other man will lie with those wives before the sun sets. It couldn't be any clearer that God did not condemn the polygamy when He certainly could have AND, instead, continued it with another man. It's obvious that unless God does YOUR will, He is wrong. Sad.

  • Mon Mar 23, 2009 6:57 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    mc, if you want to believe God condones sin that is your choice, because Absalom had sex with these women he did not marry them and this was a consequence of the sin of David which God allowed to take place. The same way He may allows someone who is shot in a drive by shooting die, so are you saying He made the person shoot the gun and God killed the person who got shot. Sin has consequences and many times God chooses not to interfere with those consequences and the passage in II Samuel you cite is one of them, but it certainly does not teach that God ordained any other form of marriage and especially since no marriage ever takes place in this passage and shortly after this Absalom is killed.

  • Mon Mar 23, 2009 5:00 pm Agree: 4   Disagree: 1

    "quit making it say things it doesn't like that God ordained any other form of marriage than one man and one woman or that God allows for sexual intimacy outside the confines of the marriage of one man and one woman!"

    Actually, God says it.
    2 Samuel 12:11  Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun.

    Looks like one man's WIVES were given to another man for sexual purposes by none other than God Himself. I would suggest YOU argue with God not me. I didn't take another man's wives and give them to another man.

  • Mon Mar 23, 2009 4:55 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    "mc, talk about judgemental you're fortunate no one takes time to point out all of your spelling and grammatical errors, but once again you really need to learn to read the Bible in context and quit making it say things it doesn't like that God ordained any other form of marriage than one man and one woman or that God allows for sexual intimacy outside the confines of the marriage of one man and one woman!"

    I'm not "judgemental", I simply want no confusion in what I am answering. The anti-marriage crowd seems to enjoy pretending that I say things that I didn't say. However, your constant repetition of YOUR opinions of the Bible still don't make them right, just your opinions.

  • Mon Mar 23, 2009 3:41 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 3

    mc, talk about judgemental you're fortunate no one takes time to point out all of your spelling and grammatical errors, but once again you really need to learn to read the Bible in context and quit making it say things it doesn't like that God ordained any other form of marriage than one man and one woman or that God allows for sexual intimacy outside the confines of the marriage of one man and one woman!

  • Mon Mar 23, 2009 3:23 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    "mc, not only do you need to take a class in logis you also need to take a class that will teach you how to read the Bible in context. David was being punished from God for his sin against God,"

    OH like Paul was saying in Romans???? Gee, I guess YOU need to take a course in "logis" too. The fact remains, God took one man's wives and gave them to another man for the purposes of sex. Once again, you want the Bible to support your agenda, you have no interest in supporting the Bible.

  • Mon Mar 23, 2009 2:10 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

    mc, not only do you need to take a class in logis you also need to take a class that will teach you how to read the Bible in context. David was being punished from God for his sin against God, the nation of Israel, as well as Bathsheba and Urriah. God allowed his son Absalom when he was in rebellion, another sin, against his father the king to have sex with some of David's wives. He did not give these wives to Absalom to be his wives and in fact they never were his wives, God allowed some of the consequences of the sins of David to run there course and as a matter of fact much of the rebellion of Absalom is the result of the sin of polygamy on the part of his father David. So your support once again is totally lacking and once again you have not shown one bit of legitimate biblical proof to show God has ordained any other form of marriage other than one man and one woman!

  • Mon Mar 23, 2009 11:11 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    "MickeyQ you need to get saved by the power of God! "

    Alas, so do you.

  • Mon Mar 23, 2009 11:10 am Agree: 3   Disagree: 0

    "Many people recall at once a few Old Testament instances of plural wives"

    More than just a few.
    As a matter of fact, fundamentalist sects in this country, such as the Mormons used Biblical authority for polygamy. Mormonism, like many protestant churches,began as a restorationist movement, which is to say it was dedicated to "restoring" everything in the Bible. Joseph Smith was very close to the Old Testament especially and felt that it was his mission to restore the old traditions of the Bible including polygamy. Today, fundamentalist Mormons (like many fundamentalists) adhere to the literal translations of the Bible for their authority regarding belief.

  • Mon Mar 23, 2009 11:01 am Agree: 3   Disagree: 0

    "God took all his wives,"

    And gave them to another man "... I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun." You'll not that God not only gave the wives to another man but is very specific about what will be done "...and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun."
    God actually promotes polygamy by giving one man's wives to another for sex.

  • Mon Mar 23, 2009 5:25 am Agree: 4   Disagree: 0

    So What? The dictionary has always has contained multiple definitions for the same word. Not a problem for those who have learned and not forgotten how to use a dictionary. They are dictionaries, not interpretations of the Bible. As such they should reflect all past, and contemporary meanings/usage of all words. A sad complaint from a group that has no problem with misusing words as capitalism, communism, liberal, socialism to name a few when their own agenda benefits from doing so.

  • Sun Mar 22, 2009 10:46 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 1

    "mc, your biblical illiteracy becomes more and more evident with each of your posts. Once again you don't cite one scripture to support your view and you resort to making foolish statements about God and His Word. Please find a dictionary and look up the words ordain and condone and you will see the definitions are very different. There are many things that God condoned in the Bible that He did not agree with but at the same time He neither ordained what was done nor did He make those things happen. Man is very capable of sinning and disobeying God without any assistance from God."

    Even when the works of God are cited, if it doesn't agree with your agenda then you dismiss it. There is little point of discussing the Bible with someone who is only interest in making the Bible say what he wants. You don't know the Bible, my guess is, based on the ignorance in your posts, that you haven't even read most of the Bible. Why not find another website that is more in keeping with the nonsense you espouse? This one is suppose to be about Christianity.

  • Sun Mar 22, 2009 10:42 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

    "mc, unlike yourself not only have I read II Samuel, but I have studied it as well and no where do you find God commanding someone to take another man's wives, but if I've missed that please cite the specific passage that is found!"

    I doubt if you even looked at 2 Samuel until I mentioned it, that is why you claimed that there was no verses saying that God took one man's wives and gave them to another man. What is most interesting is that when God Himself does something that doesn't agree with your corrupt agenda, you claim He was wrong. Unbelievable.

  • Sun Mar 22, 2009 10:39 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

    "mc, just opposite God's view is clear when it comes to marriage and sexual intimacy, it is simply you and others are willfully choosing to reject it in order to rationalize your sins and the sins of others!"

    Yet the Bible proves you wrong as in 2 Samuel. When will you accept the truth of God?

  • Sun Mar 22, 2009 10:37 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

    "believer: 2 Samuel 12:8-11


    8And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.

    9Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the LORD, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon.

    10Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife.

    11Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun."

    I wasn't going to post it because I knew that believer had never read the Bible completely, but yes, 2 Samuel shows that not only did God not condemn polygamous marriage, He took the wives of one man and intentionally gave them to another when He could have just as easily taken the multiple wives away if he was opposed to polygamy. Even when God does something Himself, if it doesn't follow believer's agenda then even God is wrong.

  • Sun Mar 22, 2009 10:34 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

    "jove, plus once again you don't cite any passage that says God commanded one man to take another man's wives as his wives which was mickey's contention in the first place to try and justify his view of same-sex marriage!"

    God didn't command anyone, HE did it Himself, thus proving His view of polygamy since He could have so easily taken the wives away entirely. You've been shown the truth but yet ONLY YOUR truth is relevant. Point, set, match.

  • Sun Mar 22, 2009 10:32 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

    "jove, this passage says nothing more than God in His providence had given David as king everything that was Saul's. There is no evidence that he ever married any of Saul's wives and more importantly that God ever intended for him to marry any of them."

    And God very clearly says that He would give one man's wives to another. Do you really think that lying will work in the fact of direct proof?

  • Sun Mar 22, 2009 10:30 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

    "Just know that everyone else reading this can see that MickeyC hasn't stated anything that can be taken serious yet. "

    Certainty not by those who have no interest in the truth of the Bible but only the way they can twist it to their own agenda. But I have hope that you will eventually put aside your own desires and embrace the actual truth of the Bible.

  • Sun Mar 22, 2009 10:28 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 2

    "NGI, I appreciate your wisdom, but I was attempting to show mickey and jove that God has ordained only one form of marriage, but I agree it is hard to determine if they are being genuine or just trying to take us off subject, so thanks for your concern and I'll continue to seek God's discernment when I respond to these posts. Be blessed as you continue to serve Him!"

    But it's difficult to prove that which isn't true. Pray that God removes the blinders from your eyes and you accept the love that God has for all people.

  • Sun Mar 22, 2009 9:39 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 2

    NGI, I appreciate your wisdom, but I was attempting to show mickey and jove that God has ordained only one form of marriage, but I agree it is hard to determine if they are being genuine or just trying to take us off subject, so thanks for your concern and I'll continue to seek God's discernment when I respond to these posts. Be blessed as you continue to serve Him!

  • Sun Mar 22, 2009 9:35 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

    jn, your last post was totally thorough and I personally appreciate the hard work you put into it, be blessed as you continue to serve Him.

  • Sun Mar 22, 2009 5:26 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

    believer, I can see that your intentions are good, but you've been led down a path that is off course of the actual topic. Unless I'm missing something, what does men taking other men's wives have to do with gay marriage? Really it has no bearing to the topic at hand. That's how people like MickeyC tend to ignore the actual topic by baiting and trapping you into something else that he can control. I suggest leaving the topic of men taking other wives alone for now because it really doesn't have anything to do with gay marriage. Just know that everyone else reading this can see that MickeyC hasn't stated anything that can be taken serious yet.

  • Sun Mar 22, 2009 4:50 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

    jove, plus once again you don't cite any passage that says God commanded one man to take another man's wives as his wives which was mickey's contention in the first place to try and justify his view of same-sex marriage!

  • Sun Mar 22, 2009 4:49 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

    jove, as for the rest of the passage God in His providence was simply allowing the consequences of David's sin to take their course. Once again God condoning is far different than God ordaining!

  • Sun Mar 22, 2009 4:47 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    jove, this passage says nothing more than God in His providence had given David as king everything that was Saul's. There is no evidence that he ever married any of Saul's wives and more importantly that God ever intended for him to marry any of them.

  • Sun Mar 22, 2009 4:30 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    believer: 2 Samuel 12:8-11


    8And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.

    9Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the LORD, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon.

    10Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife.

    11Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun.

  • Sun Mar 22, 2009 4:26 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    mc, buck and wing, now that's a new one to me, so what exactly does it mean? Plus, as I've said I've both read and studied II Samuel and no where do I find God commanding one man to take another's man's wives as his wives!

  • Sun Mar 22, 2009 4:24 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    mc, just opposite God's view is clear when it comes to marriage and sexual intimacy, it is simply you and others are willfully choosing to reject it in order to rationalize your sins and the sins of others!

  • Sun Mar 22, 2009 4:12 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

    "mc, your biblical illiteracy becomes more and more evident with each of your posts. Once again you don't cite one scripture to support your view and you resort to making foolish statements about God and His Word. Please find a dictionary and look up the words ordain and condone and you will see the definitions are very different. There are many things that God condoned in the Bible that He did not agree with but at the same time He neither ordained what was done nor did He make those things happen. Man is very capable of sinning and disobeying God without any assistance from God."

    Now that you're into your buck and wing, I can see that whatever God does must be FORCED to agree with YOU. You know, I really pity God the day you meet Him. You'll wave the Bible at Him telling Him what He said and what He meant. That will be quite an interesting day.

    Still reading 2 Samuel, are you? LOL

  • Sun Mar 22, 2009 4:09 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    mc, unlike yourself not only have I read II Samuel, but I have studied it as well and no where do you find God commanding someone to take another man's wives, but if I've missed that please cite the specific passage that is found!

  • Sun Mar 22, 2009 4:05 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    mc, your biblical illiteracy becomes more and more evident with each of your posts. Once again you don't cite one scripture to support your view and you resort to making foolish statements about God and His Word. Please find a dictionary and look up the words ordain and condone and you will see the definitions are very different. There are many things that God condoned in the Bible that He did not agree with but at the same time He neither ordained what was done nor did He make those things happen. Man is very capable of sinning and disobeying God without any assistance from God.

  • Sun Mar 22, 2009 3:57 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

    "mc, there is a difference between God condoning something as opposed to God ordaining something, God ordains no other form of marriage than one man and one woman united as one for life in the sight of God! Nor does He ordain any other form of sexual intimacy other than that it is reserved for the marriage bed of one man and one woman united as one in the sight of God for life through marriage."

    LOL Now the tap dancing begins. "Well maybe God didn't condemn it and maybe He knew about it and maybe He even aided men in having several wives, but that wasn't what He intended." Do you see how silly you look? You make God out to be a fool because you want the Bible to say what you believe and it doesn't. Too funny.

  • Sun Mar 22, 2009 3:55 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    "mc, your ignorance of the Word of God is showing once again, since the Bible does not state about giving the wives of one man to another man that is why I don't know where it is in the Bible since it is not in the Bible!"

    Better try reading 2 Samuel....at least once.

Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging comments that are unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable.
Contact Us if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.
Comment on this story
ID Password

Don't have a Christian Post ID? Signing up is easy. Click Here

  • icon1
  • icon2
  • icon3
  • icon4
  • icon5
The Christian Post reserves the right to terminate the account of any User who violates our Terms of Use.
Advertisement
Advertisement
CP Shopping
  • Jewelry
  • Health
  • Gifts
  • DVD
  • Coins

Bracelets | Chains | Crosses | Earrings | Gemstone |

Featured contents & Giveaways
Zondervan

Struggling to succeed in the Nashville music scene, talented singer/songwriter Parker James finds the competition fierce even deadly. A young woman's murder, industry corruption, a

Featured Advertiser Links