Court battles over ballot initiative survival and language disputes are nothing new this election season, but Secretary of State Jan Brewer has taken the unusual step of filing a lawsuit against Attorney General Terry Goddard over proposed language to describe a referendum banning gay marriage in Arizona.

The debate centers around whether the description of Prop. 102 on the 2008 ballot should explain state law already prevents same-sex couples from getting married. Goddard said the analysis of the proposal, which seeks to amend the state Constitution to define marriage as an act between a man and woman, should include that current law forbids such unions.

But Brewer has said she doesn't have to add the additional language, which she argued would make the proposal less clear – and she has accused Goddard of injecting political spin into the debate and overstepping his ballot language authority by writing text himself.

"The attorney general is confined in his duties to simply approve or disapprove the secretary of state's language, yet instead he continues to draft and propose his own language, which is not among his duties under the law," said Brewer, who filed an Aug. 23 lawsuit with the Maricopa County Superior Court.

Brewer's objection to Goddard's recommendations to add that a "no" vote on the initiative would retain state law that prohibits gay marriage came after protest by the Arizona for Marriage committee, which claimed the language caused "significant confusion" among voters and helped defeat a similar measure in 2006.

The addition would leave voters with the "erroneous belief" that a "no" vote would have the effect of banning gay marriage, argued Brewer, in her lawsuit.

Goddard responded to Brewer's concerns in an Aug. 13 letter that also proposed new language he claimed would alleviate her concerns of voter confusion. In the letter, he also stated that state law requires his approval of ballot language.

Peter Gentala, an attorney for Arizona for Marriage, said that including the initiative's effect on state law is not needed because Prop. 102 seeks a change to the state constitution – not to state statute.

"It's an unnecessary mention that is outside what the statute calls for," said Gentala, speaking to Goddard's recommendations and a state law requiring that ballot measure descriptions include a proposal's effect on current state laws.

In 2006, voters narrowly defeated a proposal to ban gay marriage and prevent state and local governments from issuing benefits to domestic partners of government employees.

The 2008 measure is a narrowed down version written by the Center for Arizona Policy, an influential socially conservative interest group that has formed the Arizona for Marriage committee to support the legislative referendum.

To date, the Arizona for Marriage Committee reported raising $630,000 to support the 2008 referendum that was approved by Republican lawmakers after a highly criticized action on the Senate floor that ended a Democrat-led filibuster.

In early April, the Governor's Regulatory Review Council approved a rule by the Department of Administration that would grant health insurance and other benefits to domestic partners of state workers.

Proponents argued the proposal emphasizes social equality and would help the state and its universities attract and maintain talented workers.

But opponents, including several state legislators, disputed the department's legal authority to implement such a significant shift in policy without legislative approval.

The rule also was castigated as creating an additional expense to the state in the midst of a budget shortfall, and it was viewed by social conservatives as a strike against traditional family values.