Posted on 07/09/2012 4:50:16 PM PDT by rhema
A family advocacy group filed a lawsuit today against [Democrat] Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie and Attorney General Lori Swanson.
Minnesota for Marriage — chaired by John Helmberger, the CEO of the Minnesota Family Council — is fighting for the original title of a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman, set for voters to decide on the Nov. 6 ballot.
Last year, the Legislature approved the amendment for the ballot with the words “recognition of marriage solely between one man and one woman.” But Ritchie — with Swanson’s approval — last week changed the title to “limiting the status of marriage to opposite-sex couples.”
There are two major problems with that, Helmberger said.
“It uses a word that communicates something the ballot question does not do,” he explained. The constitutional amendment “does not limit anything — it would actually establish what currently exists in our law in the state constitution, where the current definition of marriage would be protected from activist judges and politicians.
“So we believe it’s false and misleading in that respect, but we’re also concerned about the fact that our state Constitution gives the Legislature sole authority to approve ballot questions, and the form and manner of presentation of ballot questions to the voters. Constitutionally, neither the secretary of state nor the attorney general has the authority to change what the Legislature has assigned to it.”
Minnesota has had a state law defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman since 2005. Approximately a dozen state lawmakers — including the authors of the two bills requesting the constitutional amendment — have signed onto Minnesota for Marriage’s lawsuit so far.
“We’re asking the state Supreme Court to find that the secretary of state erred in attempting to replace the title given to the marriage amendment by the Legislature with another title, and that the attorney general erred by approving the substitution of the secretary of state’s title, and to direct the secretary of state to use the title the Legislature gave to the ballot question,” Helmberger said. “It’s a good title, it’s accurate, it’s appropriate, and it uses the actual wording of the ballot question. It’s very clear and will not generate confusion among voters like the title that the secretary of state has proposed would do.”
The DFL continues to be scared witless over any prospect of Minnesota citizens deciding a constitutional question at the voting booth.
This is the game. The signs on the street say, “Don’t limit the right to marry”. The implications to the stupid or willfully uninformed are obvious.
“Last year, the Legislature approved the amendment for the ballot with the words “recognition of marriage solely between one man and one woman.” But Ritchie — with Swanson’s approval — last week changed the title to “limiting the status of marriage to opposite-sex couples.”
What a crafty sleight of hand this was! As stated in the article, they were not “limiting” anything; they were defending and upholding the normal and reasonable and centuries old definition. “Limiting” was thrown in there to confuse people, to make people feel guilty. Ugh. Advocacy, where is thy shame?
Ritchie’s buddy Soros will soon weigh in with $$$
It's the new Roberts Rule. They are now allowed to change what the Legislature meant into whatever someone who comes along later needs it to be.
-PJ
Bookmark
Any idea how this will end up? Will this have to go before a court?
WELCOME TO FREE REPUBLIC’S MINNESOTA PING LIST!
151 MEMBERS AND GROWING...!
FREEPMAIL ME IF YOU WANT ON OR OFF THIS LIST!
Folks, you CAN fight back!
Go to http://www.minnesotaformarriage.com
Make a donation! The pro-gay marriage group is well-funded. We need every cent we can get!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.