Skip to Content
Political Agenda

Appeals court sends lawsuit on Minnesota's gay marriage ban back for more arguments

By Joe Kimball | 01/23/12

A lawsuit over Minnesota's ban on same-sex marriage should not have been thrown out by a judge, the state Court of Appeals has ruled. The court sent the case back to the district court for further analysis of the constitutional issues.

Hennepin County District Judge Mary Dufresne had dismissed the 2010 lawsuit, filed on behalf of three same-sex couples who were unable to get marriage licenses in Hennepin County.

While affirming parts of the Dufresne's decision, the appeals court sent the case back to the court to determine if the plaintiffs' rights were violated.

The ruling said there should be exploration of whether the law violates equal protection, due process and freedom of association rights.

The appeals court did affirm the part of the decision that said the law does not violate freedom of conscience rights, or the Single Subject Clause of the state Constitution because it was passed in a bill that contained other matters which were not "wholly unrelated matters," the ruling said.

Supporters of the proposal — on the state ballot in November — to change the state Constitution to ban gay marriage quickly pointed to the appeals court ruling as a reason why they want the Constitution changed:

 "This is exactly the type of case that has resulted in same-sex marriage being imposed in other states and highlights the need to enact the Marriage Protection Amendment next November," said Jason Adkins, executive director of the Minnesota Catholic Conference and vice chairman of Minnesota for Marriage. "Marriage will now go on trial in Hennepin County and Minnesota citizens will be at the mercy of a judge to maintain our centuries-long definition of marriage."

Comments (1)

Submitted by Paul Landskroener on January 24, 2012 - 10:27am.

Mr Adkins says: "This is exactly the type of case that has resulted in same-sex marriage being imposed in other states . . . . Marriage will now go on trial in Hennepin County and Minnesota citizens will be at the mercy of a judge to maintain our centuries-long definition of marriage."

Yes to the first assertion. This is the same type of case that has resulted in some state supreme courts finding that bedrock constitutional principles of equal protection, due process, and freedom of association preclude the government from denying equal treatment of married couples based solely on their innate sexual orientation and choice of spouse.

But it isn't the definition of "marriage" that is on trial as much as it is the meaning of the the state constitution's protection of individual liberty and the concomintant restraint on the state's exercise of arbitrary power.

When opponants of marriage equality complain about judges "imposing" same-sex marriage, what they really mean is that they oppose the constitution's prohibition of irrational governmental discrimination against whole classes of people. They they seek to impose an arbitrary limitation on the blessings of a fundamental aspect of liberty -- the right to marry -- to a favored class, and deny it to a disfavored minority.

Reliance on a flawed and factually inaccurate view of "history" to support an inequitable status quo it is exactly the same argument made by the ideological ancestors of the current anti-marriage-equality crowd to denounce courts when they "imposed" racial desegregation on the nation by enforcing the 14th Amendment as if it meant what it says.

The only thing the present generation of equality opponants is honest about is that they realize they have to amend the constitution to get what they want, which is to make it mean something other than what it says.

I hope, and believe, that Minnesotans will turn this ugly tide and will reject the proposed anti-marriage amendment in November. I then hope that we follow up by enacting true marriage equality by legislation.