Advertisement
Chief Justice Russell Anderson stressed that no members of the high court ever spoke with Johnson about whether the state's law banning gay marriage could withstand a legal challenge.
Johnson, DFL-Willmar, has been under intense scrutiny since the public release of a tape of him speaking in January to pastors from his area about gay marriage. The secretly made tape captures him telling the ministers he was assured by current and former Supreme Court members that the current ban wouldn't be overturned.
Johnson was trying to make a broader point that a proposed constitutional ban on gay marriage was unnecessary.
But such conversations could violate ethical rules that bar justices from discussing cases that might come before the court.
``There was never any discussion about the Defense of Marriage Act, period,'' Anderson said in a conference call with reporters.
Anderson said he was ``incredulous'' when he first heard about Johnson's comments.
``We don't give advisory opinions,'' he said. ``We decide these cases in the context of real cases with real people and real controversies. We do not prejudge them.''
On Friday, Johnson apologized for the comments, saying he was guilty of ``sanding off the truth'' but not lying. He maintained that he had spoken briefly about the gay marriage law with one justice, whom he didn't name.
Asked about Anderson's comments Monday, Johnson was uncharacteristically terse, saying only that he stood by the statement he gave Friday and wanted to move on.
Advocates of the ballot measure banning gay marriage have demanded that Johnson give the bill an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor. For years, the bill has been stuck in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Meanwhile, Johnson's DFL majority caucus met behind closed doors without him present. Assistant Senate Majority Leader Ann Rest organized the meeting
``We thought he should know that our caucus supports him unequivocally and enthusiastically,'' Rest said.
Rest said the caucus didn't count votes on the ballot measure itself.
But Sen. Keith Langseth of Glyndon, one of several DFLers from greater Minnesota who could swing the outcome of the debate, said for the first time he would vote against the bill if it reached the floor.
``I am opposed to gay marriage, but I don't think it should be in the constitution,'' he said.
