PELLA, Iowa, July 4, 2007

Ann Romney Stands By Her Man

Talks About MS, Stem Cell Research, Family Values

  • Play CBS Video Video Ann Romney Battles MS

    Ann Romney plays an important role in her husband, Mitt Romney's, campaign for the GOP presidential nomination, though Multiple Sclerosis sometimes keeps her at home. Hannah Storm has more.

  • Video Candidate Romney

    Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney has gone from being a long shot to a top candidate. Romney speaks with Hannah Storm about the controversy surrounding his faith and his stands on abortion and Iraq.

  • Video A Discussion With Mitt Romney

    In Full: Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney talks to Mike Wallace about the war in Iraq, his Mormon religion and his changing positions on abortion.

  • Mitt Romney and his wife Ann, speaking with Hannah Storm. Photo

    Mitt Romney and his wife Ann, speaking with Hannah Storm.  (CBS)

  • Blog Get To Know Hannah!

    The Early Show co-anchor is blogging about her favorite things and what's happening behind the scenes.

(CBS)  Former Massachusetts governor and GOP presidential contender Mitt Romney and has been garnering lots of media attention since tossing his hat into the ring.

In part two of her interview, The Early Show co-anchor Hannah Storm found out while spending a day with the couple that Ann Romney is clearly one of the campaign's biggest assets.

Storm joined the Romneys this past weekend, while they were campaigning in Pella, Iowa.

"He has good judgment. But integrity is at the core of all of it. I've seen it through so many unselfish acts, I've seen him do for all the years and obviously I love him," Ann Romney told supporters.

But Ann can't always be out on the trail with her husband. She suffers from multiple sclerosis.

"I know one of your big concerns, because you were diagnosed with multiple sclerosis nine years ago was the physical rigors and the stresses of a campaign, which are really unlike anything you've ever experienced. How are you holding up?" Storm asks.

"I've been actually really surprised by how well I've been doing. And I am very cautious about my health as you might imagine," Ann Romney says. "I might be with him today but I won't be with him for the full 12 hours. I'll come in, I'll come out, I'll rest. And that works for me."

"Something that people don't understand is your stance on stem cell research given that you suffer from multiple sclerosis because the Multiple Sclerosis Society has been very clear. They say that embryonic stem cell research has the potential to be used to protect and rebuild the tissues damaged by MS. This is something that you've carefully considered, but can you explain why you are against federal funding?" Storm asks former Gov. Mitt Romney.

"Well there are many sources for receiving stem cells for research - not just the adult sources," Romney says. "And where I think we cross a bright moral line, is when we clone human embryos or create brand new embryos solely for the purpose of destroying them."

His wife agrees with his position. Asked if she has gotten pushback from other people that suffer from debilitating affects of multiple sclerosis, Ann Romney says, "People come out on both sides. This is a very tough issue. I think all of us have to come to a decision on it. And for me it was not a hard decision. I cannot think of a situation where I would know that there is human life being created to be experimented on and there's this life, is a life. And then there's my life. I cannot equate it."

Family values are a central theme of Romney's campaign. He is the only one of the leading GOP candidates who has never been divorced.

"You talk a lot about having American values and in the same breath you always talk about your family, and your wife, and your 38 year marriage. How important is that in the context of a presidency to have the stability, to be able to say that you've been married to the same woman for 38 years?" Storm asks Mitt Romney.

"Well we certainly like it," Ann Romney says. "Works for us."

"We're still going strong," he says.

"Why is that so important because that's something that you talk about a lot. does it put you in contrast with the other candidates?" Storm asks.

"It's just who we are. It's not like we're contrasting, it's just who we are. Met in high school, been in love a long time. Know each other well - trust each other a lot. Feel like at this point we're pulling the same wagon in the same direction," Ann Romney says.

"I don't why it is and this may be true for some and not for others, but I'd rather be with Ann than anybody else. I'd rather, if it were not that, then marriage might be difficult. But we'd rather be together," her husband adds.

The Romneys say they thought hard about making this presidential run because of Ann's health. But now that they've made that decision, they're in it for the long haul, no matter what. She insists that's the way it should be.

© MMVII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Video and Galleries from The Early Show

Add a Comment See all 57 Comments
by kirstinharr July 4, 2007 11:52 AM PDT
Why is this news? A mormon wife standing by her man? If she WASN'T standing by her man, it would be newsworthy...please, no more Romney baloney.
Reply to this comment
by micma-2009 July 4, 2007 12:38 PM PDT


Romney is all ambition and no principle. He has flip-flopped on every major issue in his campaign. All he's got to offer is more Bush-like pandering to the extreme minority right-wing nutjobs.


Reply to this comment
by jsilver2th July 4, 2007 1:09 PM PDT
It always nice to check in on Mitt every couple of days to see what his current positions are...

Say why did he say the Scientologist fiction bible was his favorite book?

I may be a bigot but I wouldn't support a Scientologist for President or one who supports them-
Reply to this comment
by rharrin1 July 4, 2007 1:32 PM PDT
I don't see a point to this story.
bush stands by his men also gannon wasn't staying overnight to change the drapes in the white house.
Reply to this comment
by nishaboston July 4, 2007 2:30 PM PDT
Pointless and worthless story. Hillary Clinton stood by her man, what soon to be first lady doesn't. Stupid story!
Reply to this comment
by randalds July 4, 2007 2:58 PM PDT
She comes across as just as slick, slimy and phony as he does. Their sincerity reeks of phoniness. They remind me of the same phoniness you see from that clown of a husband and wife act on TBN as they appeal for money. They ooze into the room and leave little puddles of slime behind them when they leave.
Reply to this comment
by ramos937 July 4, 2007 3:16 PM PDT
She and Mike Fox could make a great team (I mean that in a good way). They can do a lot for MS research and treatment.

But, no matter how much lipstick she puts on Romney, he is going to bow out of the race sometime in late 2/2008 or early 3/2008. If by some chance he is the Republican nominee, he will lose. Two main reasons: first, he opposes the will of the American people who want to withdraw from Iraq (over 70%) and he opposes a comprehensive immigration plan. The Hispanic bloc will vote for the other guy.

Too bad, he looks presidential and sounds presidential but way too many self imposed obstacles.
Reply to this comment
by kerimparrot July 4, 2007 3:18 PM PDT
SO WHAT!!!???
Reply to this comment
by jedimormon July 4, 2007 3:41 PM PDT
Wow...what a mash of dis-information. "he is going to bow out of the race...", "Their sincerity reeks of phoniness.", "the Scientologist fiction bible was his favorite book", "He has flip-flopped on every major issue in his campaign", "Romney baloney...". It's about time we had a president with a proven record of fixing what's broke. And the government has plenty of things to fix.
Reply to this comment
by roger_inkart July 4, 2007 3:48 PM PDT
What pablum! Was the paid for by the Romney campaign then? It's just more irresponsible "journalism" from the asleep at the wheel, brain dead main stream media.

We don't need another empty suit pandering to the ultra-right wing conservatives. And we certainly don't need CBS giving uncritcal "feel-good" warm and fuzzy stories like this.

I don't know what Romney has done to earn this kind of verbal BJ here, but I'm starting to see a pattern similar to what lead up to Bush's "election" in 2000.
Reply to this comment
by gkc99 July 4, 2007 4:35 PM PDT
A striking resemblence to Donnie and Marie Osmond!

Where are the Osmonds, by the way?

Do Mormons believe in fluoridation? Either that, or there must be a lot of natural fluoride in the water in Utah!
Reply to this comment
by grandmusic July 4, 2007 4:46 PM PDT
Wow, I can see that most blogers who have a family must be enjoying the holiday with them. Those who have not been married for 38 years read these stories in complete agony over their pathetic broken lives. These stories of the Romneys are a rare look into the sincerity and devotion not seen very often today.
I have seen the flip of Mitt, but no flop. I have seen the talk, and then more importantly the action and RESULTS from Mitt. I hope my 14 year marriage can continue as this one has.
Reply to this comment
by myidoncbs July 4, 2007 4:52 PM PDT
As members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the "Mormons"), the Romneys are required to believe:

%u2013 God is not eternal, but was once a man on another planet

%u2013 God is married to his goddess wife and has spirit children

%u2013 Jesus is the "spirit brother" of Lucifer and all humans are their siblings

%u2013 The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are three separate gods

%u2013 The Father and the Son each have separate, physical bodies

%u2013 The book of Mormon is more accurate than the Bible

%u2013 The gospel was lost until Mormon founder Joseph Smith restored it and there is no salvation outside of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

%u2013 It is impossible to be saved by God's grace alone.

I can't imagine that any evangelical or "born-again" Christians will be able to vote for that! So, don't be too harsh on Romney. He might just be the perfect candidate to guarantee the republicans lose the next election.
Reply to this comment
by smirk5 July 4, 2007 4:52 PM PDT
Let me guess. She's a little bit country, he's a little bit rock and roll. And, that's about as far as they ever disagree.
It's still amazing that this "leader" can't talk any of his 5 sons into fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here even though he says he believes in that struggle. I guess he wants to fight them over there to the last drop of blood of other people's children.
Reply to this comment
by sero5 July 4, 2007 4:54 PM PDT
If "family values" had any real meaning to these politicians, then they would drop out of politics and actually stay closer to home with their families to deal with illness.
Reply to this comment
by grandmusic July 4, 2007 5:00 PM PDT
MyIDonCBS, get your facts from the source and not heresy pamphlets written out of hatred and naivety. You want to know what the Church of Jesus Christ believes and actually teaches in their meetings? Go to www.lds.org where you can read the lesson manuals where this weeks lessons are contained. Prepare to be surprised that the lessons teach of Christ, honesty, citizenship, morality, and families. You mock the a church that you really know nothing about. So persecuted they Jesus who they knew not. Spend your efforts on helping others, and making your community a better place as members of the LDS church do instead of tearing down a group that teaches to be more Christ-like.
Reply to this comment
by smirk5 July 4, 2007 5:08 PM PDT
grandmusic,

Tell us what happened in 1978?
Reply to this comment
by grandmusic July 4, 2007 5:31 PM PDT
Smirk5,

You mean to tell me that what happened in 1978 is more important that working together to teach drug abuse problems to children, help relief for the poor and needy, strengthening the family, serving in you community and civic duties, and teaching our children of tolerance instead of hatred and anger.

We may never agree on all the doctrines of Christ, and that is okay. If religion were that straight forward, the would be only one faith. It's ok to disagree with the LDS church, but trying to damage it and tear it down with any who follow is like getting rid of half of your basketball team because we only need five to play right? We are on the same team to battle the same problems the whole country is facing.
Reply to this comment
by smirk5 July 4, 2007 5:39 PM PDT
grandmusic,

1978 was less than 30 years ago. Please tell us why the year 1978 is significant in Mormon history. I want your take on it. You seem like you'd know about it and I'd like to read your opinion about it.
Reply to this comment
by smirk5 July 4, 2007 5:46 PM PDT
1978 was almost 10 years after we had landed on the moon.

"Prior to 1978, black men of sub-Saharan African descent were barred from being ordained to the priesthood and entering the religion's temples; in 1978, church president Spencer W. Kimball announced a revelation reversing this policy."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints

What's your take on this grandmusic?

Reply to this comment
by likeitis5050 July 4, 2007 5:47 PM PDT
Means nothing. Devotion to a woman doesn't mean you'll have the good sense to do what is right when it comes to President...been there, done that. Bush is the poster child for hypocrisy and misplaced priorities.
Reply to this comment
by grandmusic July 4, 2007 6:00 PM PDT
Smirk5,

It is pointless to contend at this venue. There are multitude of sites such as fairlds.org that have hundreds of pages on every topic that could be argued about the church. I have no intention to convince you of anything. All I am saying is can't the Christians agree to disagree, and work together to make the world a better place for all.

I don't know why the basketball example comes up again, but if I have a very strong offensive player who can score many points for my team, do I get him off the team because maybe his defense needs a little help, or maybe even a better example, do I bench him because I don't agree with the color of car he drives? That's all I am saying. Work together on the things that are wrong with the world because there ought to be a lot of things we agree on. Are we on the same team or not?
Reply to this comment
by smirk5 July 4, 2007 7:38 PM PDT
The GOP playbook I've seen over the years involves dividing people using religion. I see no problem in doing my best to aid the coming schism between southern baptists and mormons. Heck, I even feel like a Republican now.
Reply to this comment
by myidoncbs July 4, 2007 8:59 PM PDT
grandmusic, I've already been there, done that.

Personally, I don't have anything against most of the LDS beliefs, except I don't think they should be allowed to take control of the US Government (one of their official church plan since way back in the days when they were being "persecuted").

I admit that, out of lack of time, I just pasted in a list of LDS teachings that was prepared by someone else, so there is the possibility of some slight errors. However, the basic facts are not in dispute: most evangelical and "born again" Christians DO NOT consider Mormons to be true followers of Christ, and for good reason.

And, I might add, anyone who believes that crock about the "revelations" of that reputed swindler, Joseph Smith, and his bag of stones is not thinking clearly.
Reply to this comment
by bipp1546 July 4, 2007 10:19 PM PDT
I get a kick out of all this talk about not being qualified because of one's religion. I guess we forget that the last two "Christian" Presidents (Bush and Clinton) didn't do a great job running this country. It would seem to me that if you are going to base your choice on religion - Southern Christians don't have a great track record - did I leave out Carter?

I listen to fellow conservatives preaching their conservative principles and yet it is Mitt Romney that actually lives by those principles in his personal life - a good family man that takes responsibility for his actions. Instead conservatives evoke the name Newt when they speak of conservative values - last time I checked - doing your secretary on the desk is not a family value.
Reply to this comment
by opiniondoc July 4, 2007 10:47 PM PDT
To RandalDS:

There you go again. Your posts are predictable as you have no substantive arguments, and resort to ad hominem attacks on the (supposed) character of those you are assailing. You would better spend your time actually studying the issues than posting on a CBS News website, but since you have posted, I%u2019ll respond:

First, I pity you. You seem unable to recognize true character and integrity in another. The person you call %u201Cslick, slimy and phony%u201D happens to be a close relative. I have known Ann Romney all my life, and she is genuine, kind, loving and full of strength and integrity. Unfortunately, those seem to be qualities you don%u2019t recognize as you must not possess them, but it%u2019s never too late to begin. For your sake, I hope you%u2019ll get off your high (and anonymous) horse, quit throwing stones with no basis in fact and start digging a little.
Reply to this comment
by randalds July 5, 2007 12:30 AM PDT
Posted by opiniondoc at 10:47 PM : Jul 04, 2007

Hey, I was offering an opinion. Opinions are based on feelings more then facts and my gut tells me that Mitt is as slimy as any tele-evangelist. Don't like my opinion? Tough sh*it. I still have a right to it. Just like you have a right to disagree.

Every time they're on TV the remind me more and more of a couple like Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker, except even less believable. The come across (esp him) as two people who are trying their damndest to con money out of us to support their mission. I always get the feeling the. more then asking for a vote, he's trying to convert people over to his way of thinking the same way a preacher does when trying to bring sheep into the fold. And I hate Shepherds or those who think they are. To me (and it's just my OPINION!) they reek of phoniness.
Reply to this comment
by opiniondoc July 5, 2007 12:53 AM PDT
To RandalDS
You're right. It's a free country, and we're free to express our opinion. It's a shame you don't, as I said, dig beyond your ill-informed opinion. As I said before, you seem incapable of recognizing a person of honesty, strength and integrity. Yes, you're entitled to your opinion, even if the opinion is wrong. And, next time, why don't you leave the foul language out of your posts, even if it is disguised with an asterisk. Like your propensity to rely on ad hominem attacks, it displays the shallowness of your views.
Reply to this comment
by randalds July 5, 2007 1:07 AM PDT
hey you can take some comfort in the fact that I don't hold his Mormonism against him like some other do. I don't think it's any more or less of a cult then any other religion. It's just that, like a tele-evangelist, I always get the feeling Mitt is trying to sell me something I don't want and using "sincerity" to do it. He gets the same sort of semi-vacant look of the true believer in his eyes way too often for my tastes. I don't trust anyone who is as religious as he is, well not as a politician anyway. they're far too likely to do ignorant things in the name of whatever phony god they follow and at best push their fantasies into the public schools and at worst get 3500+ troops murdered. You know, silly little issue like that bother me as an American. The true "day of glory" will be when an unabashed atheist or agnostic is elected president. Until then all we can do is to keep up the fight to keep religion OUT of the American political system.
Reply to this comment
by perryg56 July 5, 2007 1:41 AM PDT
It strikes me that those who view people like the Romneys as slick and manipulative really have a cynical view of all people. People like the Romneys are outside their range of experience. Too bad, because these folks are the real deal. Mitt Romney has so much to bring to the table, not only in the character area but also in his ability to weigh all sides before making tough decisions. I don't see him making a disastrous decision like Iraq because I don't believe he will surround himself with yes men the way Bush has. Romney approach in business was to seek out all sides of the argument, then make a decision and go with it.
Reply to this comment
by rharrin1 July 5, 2007 8:06 AM PDT
Doesn't matter what faith these people have as long as they won't let it in the oval office.
Reply to this comment
by gkc99 July 5, 2007 8:30 AM PDT
"It strikes me that those who view people like the Romneys as slick and manipulative really have a cynical view of all people. People like the Romneys are outside their range of experience. Too bad, because these folks are the real deal."--perryg56

My A$$!
Reply to this comment
by infidel_us July 5, 2007 8:41 AM PDT
Wow....if all mormons looked like her I could see why they'd want more than one! :)
Reply to this comment
by condumism July 5, 2007 9:13 AM PDT
Mormon cult member Ann Romney has no other choice but to stand by her man. She is no different than all women were in the USA before the early 1970's, stuck living off of her husband because she couldn't possibly make it on her own, except maybe as a housekeeper, or a cook. IN praise of Mormon women, they are the best white girl *** I've ever had with a white girl in the USA!
Reply to this comment
by realpatriot1 July 5, 2007 9:13 AM PDT
opiniondoc,

Those of us who don't know these candidates personally have to go on what we are presented
and anyone who thinks character isn't itself an issue hasn't been paying close attention over the past 25 years or more.

The Romneys may very well be everything you say they are. However, voters have every reason to be cynical
and questioning and candidates who choose to run should either be prepared for the heat or stay out of the kitchen.

After all, it's not like anyone is mocking their dead son or their marriage or making unfounded insinuations about their sexual orientation or unfounded attacks on their patriotism.

Randal's comments are informed in the sense tat they are his opinions and he's informing you of them.

Get used to it if you want these peole in the White House.
Reply to this comment
by realpatriot1 July 5, 2007 9:25 AM PDT
Condumism,

Even Hillary who mocked standing by her man stands by her man(God does she ever stand by her man!).

Reply to this comment
by rharrin1 July 5, 2007 10:17 AM PDT
Bush's statement made no mention of the term "pardon," and he made clear that he was not willing to wipe away all penalties for Libby.

With all the money bush and cheney have made on their oil war $ 250,000.00 is nothing they could lose that every day and never miss it.

Equal justice for all everybody.

One crook protecting another crook.

Why didn't bush pardon Paris Hilton as her crime was no where near as bad as ole scooters was?

Was he afraid ole scooter would learn how to talk in jail?

How many pardons did he give out as governor?

Once again bush slaps America across the face and spits in her eye.

As I have said before Al Capone would be green with envy to what this gang has got Al had to bribe officials these just say it's ok.

Some justice system

Now bush is talking of pardon if he does wouldn't that be just another addition to the list of lies he has given the American people?
Morals, integrity, and honesty at it's finest.
Reply to this comment
by infidel_us July 5, 2007 10:26 AM PDT
Once again bush slaps America across the face and spits in her eye.
Posted by rharrin1 at 10:17 AM : Jul 05, 2007

Were you just as irate when Clinton pardoned/commuted the sentenences of 170+ on his last day in office? He actually pardoned people who were DIRECTLY invloved in investigations involving the Clintons.

I'm sure you were equally outraged. Oh, and where is your proof/evidence that Bush/Cheney are making millions off Iraqi oil? I saw their tax returns....didn't see unaccounted for money.

Where's it going??? Offshore Halliburtin bank accounts??? Is George Soros investing it for them???

Grow up.
Reply to this comment
by realpatriot1 July 5, 2007 11:01 AM PDT
infidel_US,

You have a point that there's no direct evidence of Bush & Cheney profiting off of Iraqi oil but if you believe that Bush isn't directly involved in the CIA outing than you must not believe Scooter's own notes.

I have no doubt that the Clinton's pardoned people implicated in criminal matters that they were involved in. However, you haven't provided any evidence of that and you are deflecting from the Libby case where the evidence led to a conviction.

For the record, I was and still am outraged about the Clinton pardons and would like to see him prosecuted for obstruction of justice. Tell me, given the fact that it happened on his last day in office, how were "we liberals" supposed to express our outrage? How does that excuse your apologies for the current administration's contempt for the law?

There are so many ways that this government shows contempt for the law that no prvious government ever did and you seem to be quite ok with all of it, so long as we don't grant amnesty to illegals-then the law matters.
Reply to this comment
by randalds July 5, 2007 11:06 AM PDT
Randal's comments are informed in the sense tat they are his opinions and he's informing you of them.

Get used to it if you want these peole in the White House.
Posted by realpatriot1 at 09:13 AM : Jul 05, 2007

Thanks. It would seem he can't handle opinions that conflict with his and if he thinks my opinions are rough, then he'll be tearing his hair out soon, because mine are mild compared to how rough it's going to get for all involved before the 2008 elections. Politics (thanks to Karl Rove and his mentor the late Lee Atwater) are a blood sport now and the sharks are everywhere.
Reply to this comment
by rharrin1 July 5, 2007 11:13 AM PDT
Bush's statement made no mention of the term "pardon," and he made clear that he was not willing to wipe away all penalties for Libby.

Now bush is talking of pardon if he does wouldn't that be just another addition to the list of lies he has given the American people?
Morals, integrity, and honesty at it's finest.

Posted by infidel_us
Reply to this comment
by vallel July 5, 2007 11:19 AM PDT
The reporters think they are news because they are a good looking couple, and because apparently there is nothing better to talk, that of her arcaic views on stem cell research. I hope the citizens of this country are smarter and analyze before giving there vote to some extreme right wing religous mormon.
Reply to this comment
by rharrin1 July 5, 2007 11:19 AM PDT
I'm sure you were equally outraged. Oh, and where is your proof/evidence that Bush/Cheney are making millions off Iraqi oil?

As you said in a post directed to me, you said you didn't have to prove anything that I had to prove your post was wrong with doc proof and I did. Does it work only one way?????????
Reply to this comment
by perception5 July 5, 2007 11:21 AM PDT
Mitt Romney will be the GOP nominee for president in 2008.

And if our corrupt liberal MSM wolfpack provides the "same" coverage as they "surely" will for their pals on the Democrat side..........then Mitt should win about 46 US States.

Mitt is by far the most qualified candidate from either party where he has actually "done" things to make American lives better.
Reply to this comment
by rharrin1 July 5, 2007 11:25 AM PDT
Wow....if all mormons looked like her I could see why they'd want more than one! :)
Posted by infidel_us at 08:41 AM : Jul 05, 2007

Remember you being a right wing conservative you're supposed to only like little boys.
Reply to this comment
by random_radar July 5, 2007 11:29 AM PDT
The latest trend in campaign tactics is to have a significant other with a debilitating illness. John Edwards has a spouse with cancer. Mitt Romney has a spouse with MS. What's next? Hillary Clinton having a spouse with AIDS?
Reply to this comment
by realpatriot1 July 5, 2007 11:38 AM PDT
random_radar,

Hillary has a husband with a debillitating sexual compulsion.

Too bad he's not getting treatment. A simple procedure would fix the problem and could be performed by a vet.

Reply to this comment
by donnie900 July 5, 2007 12:31 PM PDT
Its funny how sexual compulsion seems to almost always replace religious zealotry. Isn't it?
Reply to this comment
by smirk5 July 5, 2007 12:40 PM PDT
1978 was almost 10 years after we had landed on the moon.

"Prior to 1978, black men of sub-Saharan African descent were barred from being ordained to the priesthood and entering the religion's temples; in 1978, church president Spencer W. Kimball announced a revelation reversing this policy."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T
he_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_
Saints
Reply to this comment
by donnie900 July 5, 2007 12:48 PM PDT
Thats why I'm Catholic. I don't believe that a preacher of God's word can talk faithfully about sin without chastity. A man must marry the Church, and not a wife or a husband.

Lust breeds perversion out of genuine faith.
Reply to this comment
See all 57 Comments
  • MOST POPULAR
  • Viewed
  • Commented
Latest News
Featured Blogs