Breaking news from Minnesota for Marriage:
Today, Minnesota for Marriage announced it had petitioned the Minnesota Supreme Court to seek relief under Minnesota Statues § 204B.44 (errors and omissions) against Secretary of State (SOS) Mark Ritchie and Attorney General Lori Swanson for unlawfully changing the title of the Marriage Protection Amendment that will appear on the November ballot.
In a release last week, SOS Ritchie announced his intent to “substitute” the original title of the amendment from “Recognition of marriage solely between one man and one woman,” to ”Limiting the status of marriage to opposite sex couples.” Ritchie cited Gov. Dayton’s “symbolic” veto of the legislation as having “invalidated the title designated by the legislature.” Attorney General, Lori Swanson approved the change.
“The actions of SOS Mark Ritchie and Attorney General Lori Swanson are unlawful and exceed their constitutional authority,” said Sen. Warren Limmer, the bill’s chief author. “The Governor’s veto was purely ceremonial and has no legal binding on the title of the amendment. SOS Ritchie is using the veto as a trumped up excuse to thwart the will of the legislature. It is a sad day in Minnesota when the Secretary of State and the Attorney General disregard the will of the legislature and use deceptive language.”
12 Comments
Corruption happens to be a way of life for marriage corruption supporters. Nothing says tyranny quite like a full frontal assault on the laws of nature.
"Law has an inescapable moral component. Laws almost always have normative force. Let us leave aside the cases of laws that purport to command us to do something that is immoral, or to forbid us to do something morally obligatory. Those are unjust laws that are “no laws at all” in the sense of binding the conscience." Ramesh Ponnuru
We have a personal obligation and a right of conscience to refuse to abide by any law that lacks a moral composition; which any law that changes the meaning of the word marriage would surely be.
It is refreshing to see a real elected member of the state legislature working with the MMA to stop this blatant abuse of power by the Attorney General and the Secretary of State.
If they personally are opposed to the amendment then fine, they may vote. It is a direct violation of the law to interfere, thwart, and subvert the lawfull right of the people to decide this matter.
This kind of reminds me the movie "Truman". He was on the train working on his campaign. The train engineer stopped the train. He told Harry Truman that he had already sent in his absentee ballot. The President told him " Well would you let the people decide". The train started again.
Democracy is beautiful, if messy.
No doubt some main-stream media and marriage redefinition zealots will report this suit as politically motivated when, in reality, it's about holding the SOS and Attorney General to the law.
This is a great quote from John Helmberger, Chairman of Minnesota for Marriage and a plaintiff in the lawsuit.
“Some politicians are so blinded by ideology and beholden to special interests, like gay marriage activists, that we simply can’t be confident they will follow the law or respect the will of the people. The only way to protect the definition of marriage is to secure it in the constitution where activist judges, ambitious politicians and special interests can’t meddle with it.”
Indeed.
It's a sad day for Americans when anyone stands in the way of civil rights and the people who want to be legally bound together.
It's a sad day for Americans when anyone stands in the way of people deciding their own civil rights and the people who want friendship to remain friendship.
We had Same-sex pseudo-marriage coming because no one thought the opposite-sex character of civil marriage would ever be questioned. But both the health-care issue, as well as the same-sex pseudo-marriage issue is a cleansing, a purification process which has to take place now and then. When people get comfortable, and there's a bonanza, people start taking their government for granted. Then, it is easy for rebellious politicians and ministers to take over - because no one is watching. The press? The press is bribed. How? It is bribed with exclusivity in news stories by politicians who make 'news' - any announcement that attracts massive attention. The health-care issue (extended,... everything gets 'extended') points out the swindles by the Obama admin. The same-sex pseudo-marriage issue points to Christian leaders who got deceived by pseudo-scientific claims of 'i was born that way', and gave in to anti-biblical doctrine. It's a cleansing of Congress. It's a cleansing of the Churches. Notice i don't say the R. Catholic church is 'the' Church. Catholic means universal, and the universal church is not an organization, nor a building. No one can tell who is and is not part of the universal church with accuracy. I know Catholics who believe in same-sex civil 'marriage'. They might believe it is a spiritual union, and it has little to do with a civil contract, etc. It's a cleansing, alright.
Great news.
Good move.
What is the issue with Ritchie's title? Isn't that exactly what NOM eants?
Littleman #5,
Nobody is deciding their own civil rights, the constitution has already done that. You are the ones deciding what civil rights are and who shouldn't have them. And to say that relationships between people you hate are nothing more than friendships is ignorant and hateful.
eliasasm:
i've never seen a comment from you which makes sense. If you simply make statements, so can i. You think people hate you. (No one gives a damn.)
So, i am a hateful person because i am logical? i should know if i hate, and i do not. Do you hate a clown, or just find him/her ridiculous?
What's wrong with friendship?
The Constitution allows Congress to pass DOMA, and defend it. If Congress is voting on it, obviously same-sex marriage it is not a fundamental right. Plus, that's same-sex marriage, not 'glad' marriage. Why can't 'glad' marriage be legislated? Ponder on that for a while...
The Constitution does not allow same-sex civil marriage, per say. You just think it does. If it does, then why are people voting on it? 'Equality' means everyone can meet the requirements for a marriage license.
What's wrong with friendship? Friendship or love is not sufficient grounds for a marriage license. If so, then there's no need for civil marriage at all.
Example: A brother and sister cannot be allowed to civil marry, but they can certainly enjoy the sexual act between them. But just because they do so, doesn't warrant a marriage license. The government doesn't have to promote it.
Don't bother to answer.