Wednesday, July 11, 2012

Sleazy Tactics by Counterfeit "Marriage" Supporters: Minnesota Version

 Proponents of counterfeit "marriage" in the state of Minnesota are resorting to the sleazy tactics that have become their hallmark. Mark Ritchie, the Democratic Secretary of State has changed the wording of the Minnesota Protect Marriage Amendment, hoping to confuse the voters. As we posted on April 27, 2012, they tried the same type of deception  in North Carolina, and in California. It did not work in those states, and, pray God, it will not work in Minnesota. In any event, YOU can help the good people of Minnesota by contributing. Just hit the "Minnesota for Marriage" button on the right hand pane to help them as they fight for the family.

Here's our April 27 post in full:
Same-sex “marriage” activists in North Carolina are resorting to outright deception in order to advance their cause. As Brian Brown, of the National Organization for Marriage writes:

“…in North Carolina they've conceded defeat on the main question—should marriage be a union of husband and wife?—and are blanketing the airwaves with lies to scare voters into thinking the amendment will somehow strip women of protection from domestic violence”
A thorough refutation of such hysterical claims has been presented by three professors from the Campbell University Scool of Law. It may be read here.
Such behavior is typical same-sex “marriage” activists and it is a good indicator of 1) their inability to win the issue on the merits; and 2) their lack of concern for the common good of society.
On November 29, 2011, the New York Daily News reported on a ruling by New York state Judge Robert Wiggins codemning the tactics of the Cuomo administration in ramming through same-sex “marriage” legislation in violation of the state’s “Open Meetings” law:
“It is ironic that much of the state’s brief passionately spews sanctimonious verbiage on the separation of powers in the governmental branches, and clear arm-twisting by the Executive on the Legislative permeates this entire process,' Wiggins wrote."
Such tactics are nothing new, of course. In 2007, the legislature of Massachusetts even refused to allow a constitutional amendment proposing to overturn Massachusetts' court-imposed redefinition of marriage to be put on the ballot. This was in spite of the fact that a record 170,000 citizens had signed the petition. But the legislature refused to even allow Massachusetts citizens to vote on the matter.
In California, the sleazy tactics used to force counterfeit marriage down the people's throats began long before Proposition 8 even reached the ballot, and it continues long after the people of the state passed it:
• When Mayor Gavin Newsom unilaterally and in violation of the law decided to start issuing counterfeit "marriage" licenses;

• When opponents of Prop8 filed suit to have the measure removed from the ballot. Prop 8 went to the voters anyway.

• When then-Attorney General Jerry Brown changed the title of Proposition 8, in order to weaken support for it. Prop 8 won big despite the change.

• When then-Attorney General Brown refused to do his duty and defend Prop 8, passed by a significant majority of Californians.
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney

No comments: