Dear Marriage Supporter
Perhaps you've never heard of the Secretary of State Project. But if you haven't, you should.
With backers including George Soros and Tim Gill, the Secretary of State (SoS) Project is quietly packing Secretary of State offices across the country with left-wing activists...designed to tip the balance in close elections.
Gill, Soros and their cronies know one thing: For less than a million dollars, they have already had a major impact in important, but overlooked statewide races. Or, as the American Spectator put it, "Political observers know that a relatively small amount of money can help swing a little-watched race for a state office few people understand or care about...Talk about return on investment!"
And that's putting it mildly.
One of those first SoS Project targets was Minnesota – where with just a few dollars they managed to replace a two-term incumbent with former community organizer and ACORN ally, Mark Ritchie.
That race paid Soros and company their first dividends as Ritchie oversaw the 2008 recount between Norm Coleman and Al Franken.
And now Ritchie is USING THE POWER OF HIS OFFICE to UNDERMINE the Minnesota Marriage Protection Amendment, a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as between "one man and one woman."
Simply put, the Minnesota Marriage Protection Amendment would amend the Minnesota Constitution to include the words: "Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota."
But Mark Ritchie apparently didn't like the way the amendment was worded, and now when people step into the voting booth, thanks to Mark Ritchie, this is the new title people will read:
"Limiting the status of marriage to opposite sex couples."
Yes, you read that right. Ritchie is trying to slant the wording to bias the outcome.
Just about any pollster will tell you: a shift from neutral wording to prejudicial language—like Mark Ritchie's prejudicial language—can help swing the results of an election, particularly in a tight race.
Instead of being asked to decide if marriage is "the union of one man and one woman," Mark Ritchie wants voters to decide if they want to "LIMIT" the definition of marriage. Of course, the truth is that all that the Marriage Protection Amendment does is take Minnesota's current definition of marriage—one man, one woman—and put it in the state constitution where it will be safe from meddling by activist judges and ambitious politicians like Ritchie.
This is the type of organized, well-financed opposition we are up against, not just in Minnesota, but in Maryland, Maine, and Washington, too.
I'm convinced we can overcome Mark Ritchie's campaign to sabotage the Minnesota Marriage Protection Amendment.
We have four months to make sure that every voter, not just in Minnesota, but also in Maryland, Maine and Washington, has heard our message on marriage.
Our opponents understand the stakes. They are working, and giving, around the clock to paint us—and folks like you—as hateful and bigoted.
WE CAN WIN, but ONLY if we get the truth out.
If our opposition is willing to give millions of dollars to force a redefinition of marriage on everyone; what are you willing to do?
We know who will win in the end. And working together, we know who will win in November. Thank you for all you do.
Contributions or gifts to Minnesota for Marriage, Protect Marriage Maine, Maryland Marriage Alliance - No on 6, and Preserve Marriage Washington are not tax deductible.
MN - PAID ADVERTISEMENT: Prepared and paid for by the Minnesota for Marriage committee, 2355 Fairview Ave N, Box 301, Roseville, MN 55113, in support of the marriage protection amendment.
WA - Paid for by Preserve Marriage Washington, 16212 Bothell-Everett Highway, Ste. F, #276, Mill Creek, Washington 98012.
MD - Maryland Marriage Alliance - No on 6, Brian Duggan, Treasurer.
30 Comments
I've said before this org is a blatant front group for the Catholic Church. Add the GOP to the list as well I guess. They couldn't have added more right wing looney buzzwords if they tried.
Very enlightening post on the Secretary of State Project.
Nothing will stop our marriage victory this year in Minnesota, or our victories in the other states.
So are you saying you DON'T want to limit the status of marriage to opposite sex couples?
Or are you saying that you DO, and you're afraid that the return will bias people against you?
Well the amendment WILL limit marriage to one man and one woman. Sounds correct to me.
The outrage is a little silly coming from a group that behaves totally lawlessly on the issue of campaign financing, don't you think?
If you're so devoted to rule of law, why do all the states NOM has operated in have to drag them into court to make them comply with the law?
Tam, it has been said numerous times, even in the above post from Brian: nothing is being "limited" in Minnesota. The *existing* definition of marriage is being placed in the constitution.
Oh honey we don't have to TRY - you clearly ARE hateful and bigoted. And here's why: you claim that the opposition is trying to "force a re-definition of marriage on EVERYONE." Well it's not really EVERYONE. If YOU don't want to marry someone of the same-sex, YOU DON'T HAVE TO. But guess what - there are people THAT DO WANT TO MARRY SOMEONE OF THE SAME-SEX. So you come across as a hateful bigot because you feel that your beliefs are superior to THEIR RIGHTS and THEIR HAPPINESS. Now I can see you being upset if they were trying to say "Marriage is ONLY between Two Men or Two Women." But that's not what they are fighting for. And with that whole "force a redefinition of marriage on everyone" - well again, hateful and bigoted because they are fighting for equality. Under that same line of logic I could say that, technically, Lincoln "Forced a redefinition of slavery on everyone." Your rights are no more superior to mine or anyone else. And if you stop trying to "LIMIT" people's rights, then you will stop being a bigot.
+1 Tam.
If the "existing definition," as Ash says, is truly what they were going for, they wouldn't need to make gay marriage even more illegal in MN than it already is.
New level of importance = new standard, Ash. If the people really want this (though I'm getting really sick of you zealots voting on my equality) then OWN IT. You want to limit marriage. OWN your bigotry.
Marriage is the exclusive union of a man and a woman. In the eyes of blind justice, sexual orientation or sexual political identity of individual citizens are irrelevant.
How about a compromise and using this title:
"Limiting the status of marriage to gender-integrated couples"
MARRIAGE WILL ALWAYS BE ONE MAN ONE WOMEN NO MATTER HOW MANY FAKE LAWS OR HOW MANY COWARD STATES TRY TO CHANGE IT. 2 men OR 2 women WILL NEVER BE MARRIED IN THE EYES OF GOD.THEY KNOW THIS AND KEEP PUSHING IT AND IT WILL NEVER BE ACCEPTED .LIVE WITH WHAT YOU ARE AND BE PROUD OF IT IF YOU ARE GAY IT'S YOUR LIFE ONLY YOU PAY FOR YOUR SIN..
This debate gets stranger and stupider every time I see it. So now, marriage, which has always meant the union of man and women, is somehow "limited" by defining it as such in the state constitution? What's next? Are these whiners going to rant about motherhood being limited to women only?
Thanks for the info, Brian. The opposition can't win in a fair debate, as witnessed by all their propaganda concerning the amendment. And now this.
Florentius, don't give them any ideas about redefining motherhood
Weve defeated SSM 3 times here in Maine but the last one was close.They are even pushing it in the only store for thousands of daily shoppers called Colluccies on Munjoy Hill in Portland Maine.One Representative that works there was putting pro ssm pamphlets in everyones bags.So I asked if I could put anti SSM in bags and she said no.Almost got banned from store over that deal,What we deal with in Portland.
So, Voice of Rage, we are only open minded and tolerant so long as we agree with all your views.
I'm curious, how does your view that marriage be limited to two people not make you a bigot to polyamorous groups?
I find it interesting that ANYONE is against anyone marrying another adult they love, regardless of gender. I have noticed, here in Canada, that gay marriage has had a tremendous impact on straight marriage. NOT. Wake up and look around you rather than burrowing into your bigotry and intolerance of a situation with which you are uncomfortable. The only impact expanding the definition of marriage will have on you is your increased blood pressure. Chillax. eh p.s to son of adam where is voice of rage state they were against polyamorous groups? voice of rage was commenting on the wording of the addition to the amendment, not stating an opposition to other forms of marriage. But, hey, isn't that what you do? Read into things what is not there. I pray you will allow yourself to open your heart, mind and soul and understand that love and marriage between two, or more, consenting adults is wonderful, not hateful.
@Voice of Rage
Sweetie; when you demand other people’s children be instructed on the appropriateness of your depravity you are, in fact, shoving redefinition of marriage down everybody else’s throats.
To state otherwise is, to say the least, disingenuous at best - bald-face-lie most likely. You want toe see rage; then just keep going after other peoples children.
@Voice of Rage
"technically, Lincoln "Forced a redefinition of slavery on everyone."
Seriously...? You are kidding right...? Lincoln did not redefine slavery; he made it illegal. He recognized slavery for what is was and acted appropriately; he did not change the meaning of the word so as to lend an appearance of acceptability to it.
Marriage corruption supporters are living in the land of make believe; where rainbows and lollipops are the law of the land and sexual depravity is a virtue.
Excellent, Randy E King.
I'll remind everyone that there's a lawsuit to redefine marriage working its way through the MN courts as I write this. This fact underscores the need for the amendment.
Back in 2010, the marriage redefiners in the MN legislature were gloating that once they got rid of Gov. Pawlenty they'd force marriage redefinition on the citizens of MN through legislation. Gov. Pawlenty had vowed to veto any such legislation.
Lucky for us the marriage redefiners lost control of both the House and Senate in November of 2010.
Yet the opposition continues to make the false claim that the amendment isn't needed b/c there are already laws on the books.
What a crock.
@Lynda
I find it interesting that ANYONE is against anyone marrying another adult they love.
Lynda - if two or more people want to have their own little ceremony to get married, that's fine. Just don't ask the state to sanction it. In order to do that, they must redefine what the definition of marriage is. What would your definition be? Surely not based on love, unless you want the Supreme Court to have to define what that is. Living in Canada, you must know first hand of how the Human Rights Commission is coming down on those who believe in the traditional definition of marriage. That's one of the ways it affects straight marriage - by making it a crime to believe in it and promote it. I'm thankful the US has a few more protections in place for freedom of speech.
"I have noticed, here in Canada, that gay marriage has had a tremendous impact on straight marriage. NOT."
That's because you are living in a bubble, Lynda.
A Quebec homosexual activist group has launched a “registry of homophobic acts” with support and funding from the Quebec Government’s Justice Department. Can you say "Soviet Union?"
Ontario's government announced that they will force Catholic schools to allow student clubs called “gay-straight alliances.” As Catholic bishops in Ontario scramble to figure out how to square this new law mandating Gay-Straight Alliances (GSAs) with Catholic teaching on sexual morality, homosexual activist groups say that they are prepared to challenge Catholic doctrine in court come September.
Canada's SS"M" laws clearly violate religious liberties and demonizes the values that support the natural family.
Jerry Brown tried the same thing with prop 8 and it still failed.
I say let them have at it, in the end the Marriage Amendment will succeed.
Typo: It still passed.
...sorry, I haven't been able to type lately.
The name of the amendment was duly proposed and confirmed. The revision is unlawful.
Regardless of whether one agrees with the amendment name one agrees with the revision, the law matters.
That the SSM campaign persistently seeks to undermine the principles of good governance and do so with much excuse-making, well, that is good enough reason for a voter to vote in favor of the marriage amendment and against the SSM campaign.
One who is in favor of SSM could reasonably reject such an abuse by the Governor. But where is that voice? Probably intimidated out of the public square because fellow SSMers understand that the gay identity group does not tolerate dissent among "allies" nor among themselves. That is hardly a meritorious characteristic of a so-called civil rights movement.
Correction: Ritchie is the secretary of state. His abuse of the process is unlawful and provides a reasonable basis to vote against the pro-SSM side in this state.
Facebook is a pro-gay company! I'm sure you've all deleted your profiles by now, right?
Your point, AD, is what precisely?
And have you commented under other monikers at this blogsite? If yes, please list all of those monikers so that you can be held accountable by the readership and fellow commenters. Thanks.
I simply don't know if the Secretary of State exceeded his authority, but, clearly, those who support this amendment will have their day in court on this matter. I do know that his title accurately describes what this amendmend would do. To argue that it won't "limit" marriage to opposite sex couples ignores what "limit" means. The fact that Minnesota already limits marriage in this way, simply means that this limit would then be enshrined in their constitution.
@Bruce,
The amendment will enshrine the traditional definition of marriage; it does not limit it.
Limit: a determining feature or differentia in logic
Definition: a statement expressing the essential nature of something
As you can see there is no limit to the traditional definition of marriage; the joining of opposites. What you oppose is the limiting of the definition of marriage to its essential nature.
"If language is not correct, then what is said is not what is meant; if what is said is not what is meant, then what must be done remains undone; if this remains undone, morals and art will deteriorate; if justice goes astray, the people will stand about in helpless confusion. Hence there must be no arbitrariness in what is said. This matters above everything." Confucius
If by any possibility the existence of a power superior to, and independent of nature should be demonstrated, there will be time" Time to examine its authenticity. Until then this power is but a vain imagination in the hearts of the self deceived. Engineered by great deceivers to punish man for so minute a crime as his thoughts. Yet believers forgiven heinous acts against man and humanity removing the responsibility from the criminal yet leaving its victims in the same condition. This would not happen in a court of law. Where ever man is responsible for his own crimes and receives his due punishment for said crime. Where the victims are compensated, and vindicated for being victimized.